Print

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

[jakeroot]

I can say this much: if I knew outskirt freeways in the Denver area were not going to be expanded apart from very selective situations, I would think very long and hard about moving too far out and away from civilization. And I doubt I would be alone....at least among people privy to the new policies.

I've always been impressed with Denver's arterial road network. Perhaps more attention can be paid to that if CDOT isn't going to be doing a lot of freeway expansions.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why even focus on the arterial network if the goal isn’t to widen highways because it encourages driving? So would enhancing arterials. This whole thing is dumb and I have never heard of someone deciding on where they’ll live based on information about a future highway widening. Things like that are generally assumed. The government, by the people, works for the people. The people move somewhere and the government builds roads for them. When more people use it and the road needs more capacity it gets more lanes.

[brad2971]

I can say this much: if I knew outskirt freeways in the Denver area were not going to be expanded apart from very selective situations, I would think very long and hard about moving too far out and away from civilization. And I doubt I would be alone....at least among people privy to the new policies.

I've always been impressed with Denver's arterial road network. Perhaps more attention can be paid to that if CDOT isn't going to be doing a lot of freeway expansions.

E-470 is being expanded from I-70 to 104th Avenue. E-470 and its immediate area is where large amounts of single-family and townhomes are being built at the moment. Even the growth that Elbert County is anticipating has reasonably decent access to E-470, SH 83, and SH 86.

[jakeroot]

Why even focus on the arterial network if the goal isn’t to widen highways because it encourages driving? So would enhancing arterials. This whole thing is dumb and I have never heard of someone deciding on where they’ll live based on information about a future highway widening. Things like that are generally assumed. The government, by the people, works for the people. The people move somewhere and the government builds roads for them. When more people use it and the road needs more capacity it gets more lanes.

High-quality arterial roads can move tens of thousands of cars too. If anything, they can actually get people to stop detouring to the freeway and more evenly distribute traffic. If CDOT isn't going to widen freeways, they and local agencies need to do everything they can to manage traffic.

"Based on future widening" may not be the right term, but I think you'll find that many cities, especially in the Midwest and South, are more popular now because of the promise of wider highways and new freeways, or at the very least, newly built capacity in whatever form. Here in Seattle, living close to work places is still the preference because we also don't widen our highways apart from toll lanes here and there, and super-commuting (like you might see in Phoenix) just doesn't happen (on a regular basis) because it would take too long with all the traffic. You're going to start seeing that in Denver, I think. Traffic might start getting worse, and those outer-ring suburbs are not going to be as popular. On the other hand, I think you're going to start seeing a lot more people wanting to move within the E470 ring road area, with a higher demand for infill and density.

E-470 is being expanded from I-70 to 104th Avenue. E-470 and its immediate area is where large amounts of single-family and townhomes are being built at the moment. Even the growth that Elbert County is anticipating has reasonably decent access to E-470, SH 83, and SH 86.

Freeways will remain extremely important, especially for communities out in Elbert County. But I think the demand to live way, way out is going to begin diminishing. Especially if the E470 authority/commission is required to follow the same GHG rules as CDOT.

[thenetwork]

Pretty much I-25 between I-70 and Santa Fe is the skinny (Downtown) section of the Denver I-25 "hourglass".  Some of those bridges and exits are from the original Valley Parkway from the 50s.

I guess they expect drivers to ride Uber and Lime scooters and e-bikes through that stretch in the future.

[brad2971]

Why even focus on the arterial network if the goal isn’t to widen highways because it encourages driving? So would enhancing arterials. This whole thing is dumb and I have never heard of someone deciding on where they’ll live based on information about a future highway widening. Things like that are generally assumed. The government, by the people, works for the people. The people move somewhere and the government builds roads for them. When more people use it and the road needs more capacity it gets more lanes.

High-quality arterial roads can move tens of thousands of cars too. If anything, they can actually get people to stop detouring to the freeway and more evenly distribute traffic. If CDOT isn't going to widen freeways, they and local agencies need to do everything they can to manage traffic.

"Based on future widening" may not be the right term, but I think you'll find that many cities, especially in the Midwest and South, are more popular now because of the promise of wider highways and new freeways, or at the very least, newly built capacity in whatever form. Here in Seattle, living close to work places is still the preference because we also don't widen our highways apart from toll lanes here and there, and super-commuting (like you might see in Phoenix) just doesn't happen (on a regular basis) because it would take too long with all the traffic. You're going to start seeing that in Denver, I think. Traffic might start getting worse, and those outer-ring suburbs are not going to be as popular. On the other hand, I think you're going to start seeing a lot more people wanting to move within the E470 ring road area, with a higher demand for infill and density.

E-470 is being expanded from I-70 to 104th Avenue. E-470 and its immediate area is where large amounts of single-family and townhomes are being built at the moment. Even the growth that Elbert County is anticipating has reasonably decent access to E-470, SH 83, and SH 86.

Freeways will remain extremely important, especially for communities out in Elbert County. But I think the demand to live way, way out is going to begin diminishing. Especially if the E470 authority/commission is required to follow the same GHG rules as CDOT.

Elbert County, even with the "planned" growth of the last 2-3 years after nearly spending the entire 2000s and 2010s in stagnation, only has 26000 residents as of the 2020 census. Their main focus is getting better connections on some of their roads in their grid. It's going to take at least an additional 50000 residents before Elbert County and CDOT approach the idea of four-laning roads such as SH86 and Hilltop Rd.

[Elm]

Got an email from CDOT about the comment period for the updated 10-Year Plan:

CDOT finalizes an update to its 10 Year Plan

CDOT is finalizing an update to its 10-Year Plan that prioritizes projects for the first years of sustained funding from Senate Bill 21-260.  The updated plan is slated for consideration and adoption by the Colorado Transportation Commission at its September meeting, which will also bring the state’s transportation plans into compliance with its greenhouse gas planning standards.



Through close coordination with CDOT’s planning partners (Colorado's towns, cities, and counties), the Department has updated the 10-Year Plan which was originally adopted in 2020. During the development of the original 10-Year Plan, CDOT traveled the state to hear from neighbors about what transportation priorities were most important.  The updated 10-Year Plan serves as a continuation of addressing important transportation needs in priority areas such as maintaining our existing system, rural paving, expanding transit, and implementing mobility hubs along Colorado's most congested highway corridors.



Please review the updated 10-Year Plan and provide your comments using the comment submission form available via this link   CDOT will be accepting comments on the updated 10-Year Plan from September 1, 2022, to September 15, 2022.  You can review the updated 10-Year Plan by clicking here.


Thank you for your review and comments.

They also sent this by email: CDOT poised to redouble unprecedented commitment to rural roads.

[mrose]

I'd widen I-270 to six lanes before I did anything else anyway. I-25 might be a lost cause; I'm not sure having 12 lanes would be enough.

[zzcarp]

While CDOT's continuing their anti-car agenda in the Denver metro area, Colorado Springs continues to push for overpass upgrades on Powers Boulevard (CO 21). The new overpass/interchange at Research Parkway had its ribbon cutting yesterday.

The Colorado Department of Transportation confirmed that an overpass will be built on Powers at the Airport Road intersection, near the main entrance to Peterson Space Force Base.

That $49 million project is currently under design and construction could start sometime next year.

El Paso County Commissioner Holly Williams said that following the Powers/Airport overpass, she hopes the next one will be on Powers at the Constitution Avenue intersection, near the busy First & Main shopping center.

"We need them at Dublin (Boulevard), Barnes (Road), Stetson Hills (Boulevard) and especially Constitution," she said. "I imagine Constitution is pretty high on the list next because it is a major stopping point. I can also see the need for one at the Grinnell Boulevard intersection, near the new Amazon facility."

[Bobby5280]

$49 million? What kind of interchange are they planning at Powers & Airport Road? Some sort of exotic SPUI design? In that location it would seem like a standard diamond interchange would be good enough. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of odd-ball cloverleaf design built though.

The traffic engineers have to take in account an existing on-ramp from Stewart Avenue just North of the Airport Road intersection. On Powers Southbound in that spot there is a kind of ramp stub. I wonder if there are plans for SB off-ramp from Powers over to Stewart Avenue.

I'm a bit surprised they're choosing to build an interchange at Airport Road rather than just build new interchanges in sequence going South from Woodmen Road. OTOH, there is plenty of open land at the Airport Road intersection for building a new interchange with Powers. The project might be considered easy "low hanging fruit."

Farther South I think US-24 needs a couple flyover ramps at that 90 degree intersection with Powers -that is, whenever they get around to converting that intersection into a limited access interchange. Good luck on something like that ever getting built though.

A Powers freeway exit at Grinnel Blvd (and the Amazon complex) seems like a no-brainer.

[Elm]

$49 million? What kind of interchange are they planning at Powers & Airport Road? Some sort of exotic SPUI design? In that location it would seem like a standard diamond interchange would be good enough. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of odd-ball cloverleaf design built though.

The traffic engineers have to take in account an existing on-ramp from Stewart Avenue just North of the Airport Road intersection. On Powers Southbound in that spot there is a kind of ramp stub. I wonder if there are plans for SB off-ramp from Powers over to Stewart Avenue.

I'm a bit surprised they're choosing to build an interchange at Airport Road rather than just build new interchanges in sequence going South from Woodmen Road. OTOH, there is plenty of open land at the Airport Road intersection for building a new interchange with Powers. The project might be considered easy "low hanging fruit."

They're planning a DDI, arranged like this with Airport Rd angling toward Stewart Ave. The circa 2010ish design was like the Powers & Woodmen interchange, but with the loop ramps on the south side (Wayback Machine PDF link for the general idea).

In addition to the low hanging fruit aspect with the empty space and having ROW already dedicated, the Airport-Stewart interchange probably got some higher priority since it leads to Peterson's main gate; they called it a priority interchange back when they finished the Central Powers study, but then CDOT widened Powers around there first instead of building it.

Speaking of the Central Powers study, this project is kind of significant for being the first interchange in that study area (Woodmen to Mesa Ridge) to be built after the study. Doesn't inspire much confidence in the freeway conversion as a whole, though.

Farther South I think US-24 needs a couple flyover ramps at that 90 degree intersection with Powers -that is, whenever they get around to converting that intersection into a limited access interchange. Good luck on something like that ever getting built though.

It's not current, but because I think it's kind of interesting since it predates most concrete plans for Powers — one of CDOT's ROW plans for the US 24 Bypass shows some different features for this area: pdf here. At some point, they were picturing direct ramps at Fountain/Powers for EB-to-NB and NB-to-WB; also, the Airport/Stewart interchange had one loop ramp, Powers/Platte was a SPUI, and Aeroplaza was restricted to RIRO at Fountain.

Now, I think the not-so-recent latest concept for Fountain/Powers is that there'd be a loop ramp for eastbound US 24 (like this: another Wayback Machine PDF). CDOT seems pretty into DDIs, though, so maybe they'd do another; since the city seems poised to reclassify Fountain Blvd from a "freeway" to a "major arterial" (May 2022 draft map), and they're proposing a study for rerouting US 24 (with Woodmen as the main candidate), I don't know that they'd stretch much with the design here. But like you said, we'll likely never see an interchange anyway.

(Aside, I wish the city had gotten the Fountain/Academy interchange out of CDOT before all this. When they traded to make Powers a highway, CDOT agreed to build that interchange eventually, but I can't really imagine them doing that now.)

[Elm]

CDOT posted the final Santa Fe Drive (US 85) PEL on their site: main PDF here, and page linking all study docs.

The project recommendations section starts on page 66 with a map and table following; roadway-wise, most proposals are quadrant road and channelized-T intersections.

Possible projects for future study beyond a ten-year time frame (see page 77) include more grade separations and a freeway between Mineral and Bowles Aves.

[Plutonic Panda]

More press about the anti freeway crap in Colorado: https://www.cpr.org/2022/10/17/cdot-may-be-slowing-highway-expansions-but-dont-expect-any-highway-removals/

[roadman65]

https://kdvr.com/news/local/photos-dozens-of-cars-totaled-in-100-vehicle-crash/

[Elm]

A while back, CDOT received an unsolicited proposal to finish and operate the express lanes on I-25 between US 36 and Hwy 14, with emphasis on the E-470-to-Hwy-66 segment, where they're not built or in progress. The proposal has officially been rejected: Colorado rejects private bid for toll lane expansion of I-25 between Denver and Fort Collins (CPR).

(There's also a similar paywalled Denver Post article.)

They rejected it in an executive session, so there's not much insight into the rationale.

[SD Mapman]

They rejected it in an executive session, so there's not much insight into the rationale.

Probably wanted to keep the money, if I had to guess.

[zzcarp]

They rejected it in an executive session, so there's not much insight into the rationale.

Probably wanted to keep the money, if I had to guess.

Most likely to spend on non-highway improvements instead.

[Elm]

CDOT uploaded a draft of the I-270 EA to their website, here; the proposed action is on page 23. I was just skimming, but there don't appear to be any surprises: mainly, they propose adding one express lane in each direction plus some auxiliary lanes. Also some more bridge replacements in addition to the already-developing I-270 Critical Bridge Replacements Project.

They don't seem to have all the EA pdfs organized on one webpage yet, but you can see them all under the Assets page.

Regarding not recommending four lanes in each direction, the EA says (page 20):

Compared with the three-lane alternatives, the four-lane alternatives would accommodate slightly higher volumes of traffic on I-270 at slightly increased vehicle speeds. However, it was noted the four-lane alternatives would create traffic bottlenecks at the western and eastern termini of I-270 because they would exceed the capacity of the connecting systems at US 36 and the I-70 eastbound ramps. Considering the negative impact on travel times and safety these bottlenecks would have for the four-lane alternatives, the benefits for the other [measures of effectiveness] were deemed modest.

[mrose]

Oh express lanes. Didn't see that coming.

[Plutonic Panda]

Of course. CDOT is a fucking joke.

[thenetwork]

Compared with the three-lane alternatives, the four-lane alternatives would accommodate slightly higher volumes of traffic on I-270 at slightly increased vehicle speeds. However, it was noted the four-lane alternatives would create traffic bottlenecks at the western and eastern termini of I-270 because they would exceed the capacity of the connecting systems at US 36 and the I-70 eastbound ramps. Considering the negative impact on travel times and safety these bottlenecks would have for the four-lane alternatives, the benefits for the other [measures of effectiveness] were deemed modest.

I would have to disagree to some extent with the above statement -- especially with the perceived bottleneck of the western end of I-270...

I highly doubt that the bulk of Westbound I-270 traffic continues onto US-36 West.  Hazarding a guess, I would say the highest concentration of I-270 west traffic switches to I-25 North, while US-36 West gets the 2nd highest leftover volume followed by traffic turning onto I-76 East & West.

The bottleneck problem on the west end is due to all of the lane positioning in order to continue on your next route from I-270.  And if there is significant congestion on I-25 North, that screws everything up.

Meanwhile, on the east end of I-270, it's not necessarily lack of continuing lanes onto I-70 East, but rather what's happening on I-70 East and, to some extent, I-225 South that could throw a wrench in the smooth transition of I-270 traffic onto I-70.

In the few times I have traversed I-270 over the years, I have never encountered delays on the east end of I-270, and have only encountered delays on the west end once or twice -- both times transitioning onto I-76 West.

[JayhawkCO]

I just drove I-270 westbound yesterday. I would say about equal amounts of traffic exited onto US36 as I-25 north, maybe even slightly more than I-25. Just anecdotal obviously.

[jlam]

If I had to guess, slightly more people take I-25 north than US 36 west from I-270. Taking I-25 north gives you access to the various northern Denver suburbs, the Front Range, and I-80. Taking US 36 takes you to Brookfield, Boulder, and instantly you reach the mountains. I’ll have to check the traffic counts back home to get a clearer reading.

[zachary_amaryllis]

If I had to guess, slightly more people take I-25 north than US 36 west from I-270. Taking I-25 north gives you access to the various northern Denver suburbs, the Front Range, and I-80. Taking US 36 takes you to Brookfield, Boulder, and instantly you reach the mountains. I’ll have to check the traffic counts back home to get a clearer reading.

36 also covers alot of the suburbs - lots of places in NW Denver are easily reached from 36.
I still like that junction before they bemungled it. When, coming south, you had to make like a 15mph hairpin to get onto 76 east and 270. THAT was fun.

[Elm]

DIA's running a study on Peña Boulevard: Peña Boulevard Transportation and Mobility Master Plan
In-person open houses are done, but the online one is open through the March 9.

A couple articles, but it's early yet, so there's not much to read:
Fox31: DIA wants your feedback on improving Peña Boulevard
Denverite: Should Peña Boulevard be widened? DIA wants your feedback

And the motivation blurb:

The Need for Improvements

• Promote a shift to more sustainable modes—increase mobility options and create smart connections to transit
• Enhance Safety—built in 1995, Peña Boulevard does not meet current design standards
• Reduce Crashes—There were over 200 crashes on Peña Boulevard in 2019, amounting to four crashes per week
• Improve travel time reliability—travel time has become an increasing concern for passengers, employees and goods and freight accessing the airport
• Prepare for 100 million annual passengers at DEN within 8-10 years
• Address equity and barriers to opportunity—increase transportation choices along the corridor and within the Gateway Area to reduce barriers to opportunity