News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

Colorado

Started by mightyace, March 04, 2009, 01:20:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

brad2971

Quote from: vdeane on May 31, 2024, 10:50:24 PMAnd yet, even if you tell municipalities "we will not build/widen roads to facilitate your development", they'll sprawl out anyways, not even slowing down the pace of development.

Douglas County (CO) has had no trouble with financing large parts of its own highway expansion and development, including widening both I-25 and US 85. I strongly suspect them, along with El Paso and Weld counties, will continue such initiatives despite the General Assembly and Governor Polis being obdurate.


Bobby5280

#401
The hypocrisy is utterly ridiculous. In Colorado Springs they're building all sorts of new neighborhood subdivisions sprawling farther East of the city. Some of these developments have their own landscaped streets that are 4-lane divided. But then those manicured neighborhood streets empty out onto a state or local maintained 2-lane highway. For instance, US-24 going thru Falcon is turning into a bottleneck. CDOT needs to 4-lane and divide that road clear past Peyton. Nope. They'll leave it as a dinky 2-lane road. It doesn't matter how many people get killed in head-on collisions and other accidents. The deaths and injuries are all an effort to be green.

Then there is the matter of population along the Front Range Cities increasing no matter what. These idiots think they're going to prevent traffic jams by not widening the highways? Uh, news flash: doing nothing is only going to make the traffic jams and emissions of greenhouse gases even worse. Motorists are going to drive their vehicles however much time it takes for them to drive between work and home. If the highways have less traffic carrying capacity that will translate into the vehicles being stuck on the roads longer, belching out greenhouse gas fumes all the extra time it takes for them to complete that commute.

Great Lakes Roads

Quote from: longhorn on May 31, 2024, 01:14:17 PMI do not know if this is actual news or hope it happens story from NYT.....

Colorado's Bold New Approach to Highways — Not Building Them

https://www.yahoo.com/news/colorado-bold-approach-highways-not-121510307.html

-Jay Seaburg

Great Lakes Roads

-Jay Seaburg

JayhawkCO

Quote from: JayhawkCO on April 16, 2024, 11:32:59 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 15, 2024, 11:42:02 PMLooks like the state highway shield got a redesign. I personally don't like it much standalone, but I've seen it on BGS plans and I really like it there.



I have not seen this in the wild at all.

I just went camping down by Lake City (to climb Uncompaghre Peak) and went different ways there and back. I saw the new sign for CO12 on US160 and CO105 on I-25 Northbound. I don't care for them at all, but I'm sure it'll become the new normal eventually.

Elm

CDOT will have a meeting on July 24 for the I-25 (US 36 to 104th Avenue) Safety & Operations Improvements Study, which is coming out of stasis.

Right now, most of the information about they have is on this page or linked from it (note there are links in both the left and right columns). It's about the suspended EA now, but may change since it has the project homepage URL.

At a minimum, eventually expect wider shoulders, a buffer for the express lane, and an 88th Avenue bridge replacement, which were omitted from the area's express lane project that finished in 2016. Other elements proposed before include moving the 88th Ave bus stop to the median (likely), and auxiliary/CD lanes.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find docs they reference on CDOT's website now, but I'm pretty sure that at least the draft EA and White Paper #2 were there at some point; maybe they'll be posted near/after the meeting.

roadman65

I see US 160 is exempt from the rule that US designations aren't to be signed on interstates, especially given that US 85 & 87 are both overlapped here.
https://www.aaroads.com/co/025/i-025-n-exit-018-1.jpg
Courtesy AA Roads.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x4TkKcgttpt5Togt9
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

pderocco

Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2024, 03:53:50 PMI see US 160 is exempt from the rule that US designations aren't to be signed on interstates, especially given that US 85 & 87 are both overlapped here.
https://www.aaroads.com/co/025/i-025-n-exit-018-1.jpg
Courtesy AA Roads.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x4TkKcgttpt5Togt9
I've never heard of such a rule, and if it is, it seems like it's violated everywhere. Or is that just a Colorado thing?

US 89

Quote from: pderocco on October 26, 2024, 12:32:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2024, 03:53:50 PMI see US 160 is exempt from the rule that US designations aren't to be signed on interstates, especially given that US 85 & 87 are both overlapped here.
https://www.aaroads.com/co/025/i-025-n-exit-018-1.jpg
Courtesy AA Roads.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x4TkKcgttpt5Togt9
I've never heard of such a rule, and if it is, it seems like it's violated everywhere. Or is that just a Colorado thing?

Well, "rule" is maybe a bit misleading, but Colorado essentially never signs US highways on interstate concurrencies. It goes far enough that there's an "End US 36" sign going east on the 36 freeway in Denver where the I-270 designation starts. Of course, if you follow 270 and 70 east and exit in Byers, you'll find yourself on US 36 again.

There's at least one other signed I/US overlap in Colorado, which is I-25/US 24 in Colorado Springs.

usends

Colorado generally "breaks" both US and state routes where they overlap with an interstate, but there are plenty of exceptions.  Besides the aforementioned US 160 and US 24, both mainline US 50 and Business US 50 are signposted along I-25 in Pueblo.
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

pderocco

So they're actually claiming that there are no concurrencies? Does AASHTO agree?

The only justification I can think of for this policy is to save money on signage. But given that the cost of reassurance signs is probably 0.01% of the cost of building the damn road, it sounds like it's not worth the confusion.

JayhawkCO

Quote from: usends on October 26, 2024, 07:28:14 PMColorado generally "breaks" both US and state routes where they overlap with an interstate, but there are plenty of exceptions.  Besides the aforementioned US 160 and US 24, both mainline US 50 and Business US 50 are signposted along I-25 in Pueblo.

IIRC, also CO9 along I-70 between Silverthorne and Frisco.

roadman65

Quote from: pderocco on October 26, 2024, 12:32:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2024, 03:53:50 PMI see US 160 is exempt from the rule that US designations aren't to be signed on interstates, especially given that US 85 & 87 are both overlapped here.
https://www.aaroads.com/co/025/i-025-n-exit-018-1.jpg
Courtesy AA Roads.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x4TkKcgttpt5Togt9
I've never heard of such a rule, and if it is, it seems like it's violated everywhere. Or is that just a Colorado thing?

Figurative I'm referring like an unwritten rule, but practiced.

Arkansas does the same except with US 78, that they are signing despite other roads like US 63, 64, 65, 79 are split up by freeway overlaps and up until recently ( from a very reliable person) never cared to sign US routes overlapped on interstates.

Florida has two Johnny Come Latelys both US 1 in Miami and US 17 in Jacksonville were recently taken off city streets to be on both I-95 and I-10 for the latter.

The above photo shows US 1 at I-95's commencement in Miami with Brickell Avenue being unnumbered and I-95 going solo as it begins off US 1 that vanishes here.  It once followed ( and used to be signed along) Brickell Avenue at this gantry.

They to are like US Ends saying Colorado splitting routes up due to lack of not signing the overlap.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

formulanone

#413
Quote from: roadman65 on October 27, 2024, 09:20:34 AM
Quote from: pderocco on October 26, 2024, 12:32:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2024, 03:53:50 PMI see US 160 is exempt from the rule that US designations aren't to be signed on interstates, especially given that US 85 & 87 are both overlapped here.
https://www.aaroads.com/co/025/i-025-n-exit-018-1.jpg
Courtesy AA Roads.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x4TkKcgttpt5Togt9
I've never heard of such a rule, and if it is, it seems like it's violated everywhere. Or is that just a Colorado thing?

Figurative I'm referring like an unwritten rule, but practiced.

Arkansas does the same except with US 78, that they are signing despite other roads like US 63, 64, 65, 79 are split up by freeway overlaps and up until recently ( from a very reliable person) never cared to sign US routes overlapped on interstates.

Florida has two Johnny Come Latelys both US 1 in Miami and US 17 in Jacksonville were recently taken off city streets to be on both I-95 and I-10 for the latter.

The above photo shows US 1 at I-95's commencement in Miami with Brickell Avenue being unnumbered and I-95 going solo as it begins off US 1 that vanishes here.  It once followed ( and used to be signed along) Brickell Avenue at this gantry.

They to are like US Ends saying Colorado splitting routes up due to lack of not signing the overlap.

Florida is similar in practice, in which FDOT rarely posts SR or US overlaps on its Interstates, but is pretty good about posting state-maintained overlaps. Here's the one exception I can think of:



But here's an example of Colorado doing it, as well:



It's well-known around here that US 85 and I-25 aren't really on speaking terms.

JayhawkCO

#414
Quote from: formulanone on October 27, 2024, 10:26:26 AMIt's well-known around here that US 85 and I-25 aren't really on speaking terms.

That's what happens when you get together and break up a couple of times.

roadman65

US 85 should be truncated to Denver and US 87 should be like US 2 and be two separate highways.  The lengthy overlap with I-25 is not necessary.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

JayhawkCO

Quote from: roadman65 on October 27, 2024, 03:25:53 PMUS 85 should be truncated to Denver and US 87 should be like US 2 and be two separate highways.  The lengthy overlap with I-25 is not necessary.

I mean, for all intents and purposes US87 is already in three parts. The official status is fairly irrelevant.

thenetwork

Here's a CDOT WTF move which has happened over the last week on I-70 in Garfield County.

Crews have been replacing, or taking down fairly new diagrammatic roundabout signs at several I-70 interchanges, including Exit 72/West Parachute and Exit 90/Rifle.

In their place are simple left/right/thru arrow signs, with no indication that the intersection is a roundabout and not a traditional diamond interchange.

Not able to get pictures, but the old diagrammatical signs were not that hard to understand.  Simple left/right/thru arrows heading towards a roundabout is a recipe for disaster.

JayhawkCO

Quote from: thenetwork on October 29, 2024, 02:09:56 PMHere's a CDOT WTF move which has happened over the last week on I-70 in Garfield County.

Crews have been replacing, or taking down fairly new diagrammatic roundabout signs at several I-70 interchanges, including Exit 72/West Parachute and Exit 90/Rifle.

In their place are simple left/right/thru arrow signs, with no indication that the intersection is a roundabout and not a traditional diamond interchange.

Not able to get pictures, but the old diagrammatical signs were not that hard to understand.  Simple left/right/thru arrows heading towards a roundabout is a recipe for disaster.

Don't know that I'd call it a recipe for disaster. Plenty of people drive through roundabouts without much signage at all and don't crash.

Great Lakes Roads

-Jay Seaburg

Plutonic Panda

The I-25/US-50B interchange project in Pueblo has broken ground. It will be converted to a DDI.

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/cdot-kicks-off-interstate-25-interchange-project-in-pueblo/66585

Elm

CDOT has completed the Burnham Yard Transportation Study, to decide how to proceed with a former railroad property they initially acquired with an eye on moving a rail line away from I-25 in Denver, between Alameda and  6th Ave.
In short, they propose to dispose of the entire property, retaining none for transportation purposes.

It's not really surprising that there isn't a highway component to the suggestion; by the time CDOT started the study, they had removed the I-25 angle. It is surprising to me that they don't suggest keeping any, even for light rail, considering they've already acquired it. This area is a bottleneck in the middle of the sort of "X"-shaped light rail lines, so there was interest in adding more tracks to allow for more frequent trains; according to the report, current and future ridership on the area's light rail lines has dropped to the point that RTD isn't interested in pursuing that.

As a refresher, when CDOT acquired it, the tone was "CDOT Closes Burnham Yard Deal, Securing Critical Right of Way for Future Transportation Needs", and more specifically:
QuoteCDOT anticipates using around 17 acres of the rail yard to relocate train tracks, allowing for improvements to I-25 through central Denver, while simultaneously reserving right of way for Front Range Passenger Rail and for an expansion of congested RTD light rail lines.
That was vaguely around the time that they finished the I-25 Central PEL.

The report indicates that relocating the tracks next to RTD's light rail tracks would be undesirable due to noise and vibration impacts to the current neighborhood east of the light rail tracks and the proposed development in the Burnham Yard. Additional rail lines could also create a division between the current and proposed developed areas.

So far, I've seen one article about the report: "Colorado bought a Denver railyard for $50 million. 3 years later, it could be sold" (Dendrite).
The Transportation Commission and CTIO had joint briefing on it last week, slides here.

zachary_amaryllis

Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 27, 2024, 03:06:15 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 27, 2024, 10:26:26 AMIt's well-known around here that US 85 and I-25 aren't really on speaking terms.

That's what happens when you get together and break up a couple of times.

What's funny about the 76-6-85 sign upthread, is it's like what.. 3/4 of a mile or so, from where all that diverges.

I also like, as you merge onto 76 from either end of the concurrency, and you see a 76 reassurance marker, way before you've merged onto actual 76.

And can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.
clinched:
I-64, I-80, I-76 (west), *64s in hampton roads, 225,270,180 (co, wy)

pderocco

Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 02, 2024, 10:11:00 AMAnd can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.
As far as I could tell, it exists all the way from Grand Junction to Silverthorne, but sometimes it's multiplexed with I-70, and sometimes there's an adjacent road that is still important enough to number it, so why not keep its old US-6 designation? I-70 only gets that designation in order to maintain a continous routing of US-6.

JayhawkCO

Quote from: pderocco on December 03, 2024, 02:30:20 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 02, 2024, 10:11:00 AMAnd can we talk about that unholy relationship between 6 and 70? On again, off again. No commitment. 70 just tosses 6 aside like a used tissue in some places. Kinda sad, really.
As far as I could tell, it exists all the way from Grand Junction to Silverthorne, but sometimes it's multiplexed with I-70, and sometimes there's an adjacent road that is still important enough to number it, so why not keep its old US-6 designation? I-70 only gets that designation in order to maintain a continous routing of US-6.

It's impossible to drive continuously at Rifle.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.