AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Colorado  (Read 22032 times)

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
« Reply #100 on: August 09, 2020, 10:34:23 AM »


Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

I thought that as its own county, Broomfield was unable to annex any more territory (just like WRT Denver).

Mike

Yes, the Colorado Constitution states:

Quote
Article XIV, Section 3.  Striking off territory vote. Except as otherwise provided by statute, no part of the territory of any county shall be stricken off and added to an adjoining county, without first submitting the question to the registered electors of the county from which the territory is proposed to be stricken off; nor unless a majority of all the registered electors of said county voting on the question shall vote therefor.

Therefore any future annexations for Denver or Broomfield will require a vote of the county from which the land is annexed. Broomfield also has a boundary commission consisting of reps from Weld, Boulder, Jefferson, and Adams County and 3 Broomfield reps for which majority approval is required before annexation proceedings can commence.

Regarding the Northwest Parkway shoestring annexation, the state constitutional amendment creating Broomfield as a city/county was approved by voters in November 1998, and it contained a three year transition period. They could annex land as shown on their May 1998 master plan without any public votes until November 15, 2001.

I believe that the Northwest Parkway right-of-way was reserved on that master plan and annexed before construction began in June 2001.

Also, when I researched this issue, I discovered that there is a tiny portion of the Northwest Parkway in Lafayette. This is around the US 287 interchange and basically follows the eastbound lanes of Dillon Road from the underpass west of US 287 to the railroad spur east of US 287. I have never seen the Lafayette police patrolling the Parkway proper.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3851
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 02:34:09 PM
Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
« Reply #101 on: August 15, 2020, 02:48:08 PM »


Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

I thought that as its own county, Broomfield was unable to annex any more territory (just like WRT Denver).

Mike

Yes, the Colorado Constitution states:

Quote
Article XIV, Section 3.  Striking off territory vote. Except as otherwise provided by statute, no part of the territory of any county shall be stricken off and added to an adjoining county, without first submitting the question to the registered electors of the county from which the territory is proposed to be stricken off; nor unless a majority of all the registered electors of said county voting on the question shall vote therefor.

Therefore any future annexations for Denver or Broomfield will require a vote of the county from which the land is annexed. Broomfield also has a boundary commission consisting of reps from Weld, Boulder, Jefferson, and Adams County and 3 Broomfield reps for which majority approval is required before annexation proceedings can commence.

Regarding the Northwest Parkway shoestring annexation, the state constitutional amendment creating Broomfield as a city/county was approved by voters in November 1998, and it contained a three year transition period. They could annex land as shown on their May 1998 master plan without any public votes until November 15, 2001.

I believe that the Northwest Parkway right-of-way was reserved on that master plan and annexed before construction began in June 2001.

Also, when I researched this issue, I discovered that there is a tiny portion of the Northwest Parkway in Lafayette. This is around the US 287 interchange and basically follows the eastbound lanes of Dillon Road from the underpass west of US 287 to the railroad spur east of US 287. I have never seen the Lafayette police patrolling the Parkway proper.

From what I'm getting from the highlighted part, am I correct in that the state legislature can pass/governor sign a law allowing those 'city-counties' to start annexing territory again by using whatever rules the state sets up, should they so desire?

 :hmmm:

Mike
Logged

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: really dumb question about 'privately owned' toll roads
« Reply #102 on: August 15, 2020, 06:26:52 PM »

From what I'm getting from the highlighted part, am I correct in that the state legislature can pass/governor sign a law allowing those 'city-counties' to start annexing territory again by using whatever rules the state sets up, should they so desire?

 :hmmm:

Mike

The "unless otherwise authorized by statute" has been thus far limited to technical items such as boundary agreements and the settlement of irregular boundaries between Denver and Jefferson, Adams, and Arapahoe of less than 50 acres. The list of Colorado Revised Statutes are here.


I believe there is a limiting principle here-the legislature can't override the constitution willy-nilly, even an activist one as you suppose. Even most of the statutes still contain the right of the people to vote, or, at minimum the county commissioners and a boundary commission. Disclaimer, I'm no lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1376
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 04:16:47 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #103 on: August 17, 2020, 05:46:11 PM »

First I-270 reconstruction project meeting August 30th.

https://www.codot.gov/projects/i270

It would be nice if they added at least one or two lanes each way and connect northfield with a new bridge to 49th. Lots of room for improvements on this stretch of interstate.
Logged

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #104 on: August 17, 2020, 06:11:33 PM »

First I-270 reconstruction project meeting August 30th.

https://www.codot.gov/projects/i270

It would be nice if they added at least one or two lanes each way and connect northfield with a new bridge to 49th. Lots of room for improvements on this stretch of interstate.

That would be nice. We're much more likely to get a toll lane and hopefully a much needed improvement to the Vasquez cloverleaf which is the biggest bottleneck in the corridor.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1376
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 04:16:47 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #105 on: August 17, 2020, 06:41:28 PM »

It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I donít mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.
Logged

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #106 on: August 17, 2020, 08:08:44 PM »

CDOT's monofocus on HOT lanes and lack of focus on auxiliary lanes and lane parity is a problem. On the current I-70 project, they could have had 5 through lanes in the 2 miles between I-270 and I-225 along I-70. Instead, they force an eastbound lane drop at Peoria street (back to) 4 just to expand back to 5 at the exit. Very little additional pavement would have been necessary to bring actual improvements to the public, and it doesn't seem like that's CDOT's purpose.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3083
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:33 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Colorado
« Reply #107 on: August 17, 2020, 08:27:06 PM »

CDOT's monofocus on HOT lanes and lack of focus on auxiliary lanes and lane parity is a problem.

Agree. I have family in the southwest suburbs of Denver, so every 2 years or so I'll visit that area. There's been construction on C-470 the past several times I've been out there, so I was hoping the end goal of that would be at least 3 general purpose lanes in each direction. I was incredibly disappointed with the 2+1 configuration I saw there this summer.

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3143
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 08:15:23 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #108 on: August 20, 2020, 08:16:49 AM »

It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I donít mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.
Logged

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 110
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 06:22:49 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #109 on: August 20, 2020, 01:01:28 PM »

It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I donít mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.

Only slightly less disappointing but I'm pretty sure US 89 means the other way around haha. At minimum, C-470 could use 3 general purpose lanes. I don't see how that's so hard to implement, I had the same criticism when they redid I-35W as 2-2-2-2 in Texas.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3083
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:33 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Colorado
« Reply #110 on: August 20, 2020, 01:51:29 PM »

It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I donít mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.

Only slightly less disappointing but I'm pretty sure US 89 means the other way around haha. At minimum, C-470 could use 3 general purpose lanes. I don't see how that's so hard to implement, I had the same criticism when they redid I-35W as 2-2-2-2 in Texas.

Yeah, I meant 2 GP lanes and one toll lane in each direction. When I was out there the tolls hadn't yet been implemented and there was actually a decent flow of traffic, but I'm betting the usual congestion returns once tolling begins (if it hasn't already).

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #111 on: August 20, 2020, 07:49:31 PM »

It sucks Colorado has been going crazy with toll lanes. I donít mind them but not on 4 lane freeways especially the way Colorado does it with 2-1-1-2 setup which is the worst.

That is terrible.  I don't know how it makes even remote sense to have 2 toll lanes for 1 general purpose lane. And from what I hear on the forum the rate per mile on these toll roads is quite expensive.

Only slightly less disappointing but I'm pretty sure US 89 means the other way around haha. At minimum, C-470 could use 3 general purpose lanes. I don't see how that's so hard to implement, I had the same criticism when they redid I-35W as 2-2-2-2 in Texas.

Yeah, I meant 2 GP lanes and one toll lane in each direction. When I was out there the tolls hadn't yet been implemented and there was actually a decent flow of traffic, but I'm betting the usual congestion returns once tolling begins (if it hasn't already).

They began tolling the C-470 lanes Tuesday. Interestingly, these are not HOT lanes (no HOV-3 discount), but motorcycles still travel free.

I don't think they're seeing the traffic jams right now due to people working from home. I just checked the CDOT cameras at C-470 and Santa Fe, and general purpose lane traffic is free-flowing. Typically at 5:30 on a weekday westbound traffic is slammed there and eastbound traffic begins jamming just east of there.



Logged
So many miles and so many roads

Elm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 50
  • Last Login: September 29, 2020, 07:51:48 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #112 on: September 29, 2020, 01:41:41 PM »

I was surprised today to see a few articles (like this) about bill to designate a future I-27 in Colorado, related to the Ports-to-Plains Corridor; Iíll be curious to see how the bill and subject develop now that they might get some more time in the public eye.

The surprise was that the bill would be created possibly without CDOT's support, since it seems like CDOTís been trying not to get involved with the interstate designation, which the articles do get into. Last month, there was a presentation to the Transportation Commission about Ports-to-Plains and I-27óinformational only, although the informal request to support designating a future interstate was thereówhich got a lukewarm reception overall. Those slides are here, and thereís a recording on YouTube on Youtube (link should start 1:17:05).
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2655
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 04:33:47 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #113 on: September 29, 2020, 03:25:49 PM »

I don't see Interstate 27 being extended north of Amarillo, or south of Lubbock; let alone connecting Laredo with Colorado. I'd be shocked if Interstate 27 is ever extended. However, Texas is a state where anything can happen, so I'll believe it when I see it.
Logged

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #114 on: September 29, 2020, 04:57:42 PM »

Senator Gardner's bill referred to in the article is calling for solely upgrading CO 71 from Limon to Brush. CDOT did study this facility (released in May) and did state that an Interstate-grade facility would attract 1100 trucks per day. The current traffic count there is 1100 vehicles per day and has remained constant over the last 20 years, so I really dispute any savings there. Colorado just has too many highway needs to waste money on an unneeded upgrade.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

Elm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 50
  • Last Login: September 29, 2020, 07:51:48 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #115 on: September 29, 2020, 07:46:47 PM »

Senator Gardner's bill referred to in the article is calling for solely upgrading CO 71 from Limon to Brush. CDOT did study this facility (released in May) and did state that an Interstate-grade facility would attract 1100 trucks per day. The current traffic count there is 1100 vehicles per day and has remained constant over the last 20 years, so I really dispute any savings there. Colorado just has too many highway needs to waste money on an unneeded upgrade.

I think the request applies to the full corridor, but the Limon-Brush segment is isolated because itís part of the Heartland Expressway (14) rather than the official Ports-to-Plains (38). If Iím reading correctly, page 2 lines 8-9 in the bill pdf would apply the interstate designation to Ports-to-Plains, including the Colorado portion.

Incidentally, I just realized that the separate future interstate request from Texas and New Mexico (HB 7151) includes the corridor(s) in Colorado. Although I wasn't watching too closely, I thought they had cut the request back to just TX/NM when CDOT didnít give a letter of support, so hypothetical I-27 would end at I-25 around Raton.
Logged

jayhawkco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Aurora, CO
  • Last Login: September 30, 2020, 03:17:27 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #116 on: September 30, 2020, 02:58:53 AM »

I've said this in other threads.  No one lives out there.  The most important city in eastern Colorado is Limon, and it has less than 2,000 people and is only important because there's an interstate and multiple US highways that go through it.  The largest town is Sterling and it has less than 15,000 people.  Having driven about 70% of the roads east of I-25 here recently on my (somewhat questionably wise) attempt to clinch the state, there is no good reason to have an interstate out there.  The route mostly used by semis, US287, is plenty enough for the volume that goes from Texas up to Denver.  It barely passes through towns, so a limited access highway is not that much of an upgrade.

Chris

zachary_amaryllis

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 100
  • Just another guy who likes highway stuff.

  • Age: 50
  • Location: colorado
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 06:30:40 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #117 on: October 01, 2020, 08:43:06 PM »

as long as we're talking colorado...

climb lanes. nw of fort collins on 287 (what locals call the 'bypass'), as you start up a hill there's a climb lane, which ends oh 1/2 mile later or so at the top of the hill. maybe a mile further highway north, it begins again, starting a 4-lane stretch of a few miles.

how much money did codot save by making this road a super-2 with the climb lanes, vs. just 4-laning it? there's certainly enough traffic, says guy who drives this road almost daily.
Logged
interstates clinched: 64, the *64's in hampton roads va AND as of 8-23, filled in the last of i-80, pine bluffs to cheyenne!

zachary_amaryllis

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 100
  • Just another guy who likes highway stuff.

  • Age: 50
  • Location: colorado
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 06:30:40 PM
us 400 in colorado
« Reply #118 on: October 10, 2020, 10:43:27 AM »

i searched and didn't find anything on this, so if it exists, point me to it..

why would us 400 go into colorado at all? its concurrent with 50 until somewhere in kansas, seems like its needlessly there.
Logged
interstates clinched: 64, the *64's in hampton roads va AND as of 8-23, filled in the last of i-80, pine bluffs to cheyenne!

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #119 on: October 10, 2020, 01:08:39 PM »

i searched and didn't find anything on this, so if it exists, point me to it..

why would us 400 go into colorado at all? its concurrent with 50 until somewhere in kansas, seems like its needlessly there.

From the USEnds website article on the subject:

Quote
It is also true that US 400 enters Colorado.  But originally that was not the case.  And, like Missouri, the entire Colorado segment is concurrent with another US route (US 50).  The most likely scenario in 1996 was that KDoT decided they wanted to extend their corridor all the way to their western border, but they assumed AASHTO would not have allowed a US route to terminate at a state line*, so they asked CDoT to jointly apply for a western extension of US 400.  Colorado agreed simply for the sake of being a good neighbor, but clearly CDoT has no use for the US 400 designation, as they terminate the route at the first US highway junction it encounters.
*this may have been an erroneous assumption, considering all of the other violations that AASHTO was willing to overlook with regard to US 400 designation.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14235
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 05:24:05 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #120 on: October 12, 2020, 10:08:02 AM »

Ports-to-Plains ... New Mexico

I just drove part of the PtP in New Mexico, and I saw this.

SCHOOL / SPEED LIMIT 15 / WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT

I must say, it really made me question how important the corridor is to the state of New Mexico...
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

halork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 73
  • Last Login: October 14, 2020, 07:00:31 AM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #121 on: October 14, 2020, 07:00:57 AM »

Ports-to-Plains ... New Mexico

I just drove part of the PtP in New Mexico, and I saw this.

SCHOOL / SPEED LIMIT 15 / WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT

I must say, it really made me question how important the corridor is to the state of New Mexico...

It just means their children are MORE important.
Logged

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:12:36 PM
Re: Colorado
« Reply #122 on: October 20, 2020, 05:23:18 PM »

A quite impressive GPS fail on Engineer Pass, a 4WD road in southwestern Colorado, where a 30' box truck got stuck on the pass.

Quote
A box truck got stuck near the top of a treacherous mountain road in Colorado over the weekend, all because he was following his GPS.

The 30-foot box truck got stuck on a mountain road north of Silverton, Colorado on Friday, October 16th and is still there, according to The Durango Herald.

The rugged mountain road is known as Engineer Pass, and is notorious for being one of the most tricky, treacherous, and steep backcountry roads in the area. The road has a peak elevation of 12,800 feet and requires four-wheel-drive and a high-clearance vehicle. It is a part of the Alpine Loop, which connects Silverton, Co to Ouray, Co and goes all the way to Lake City through a series of rocky roads through the San Juan Mountains.

Officials say the truck was near the top of Engineer Pass following a GPS route heading towards Lake City when he tried to turn around, getting himself stuck near the top.

There's a great picture and the rest of the story at the link.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

 


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.