I-70 Mountain Corridor (Denver, Golden, Eagle: ski resort, real estate, coupons)

[rgb123]

Part of the reason "no one" (not true really) uses Amtrak trains is because the freighters own the tracks -- Amtrak is quite often delayed because they are at the mercy of the Freight trains, who are not always sensistive to the schedule Amtrak trains are trying to keep. Generally, commuters do not use Amtrak for this reason.

Trains on a dedicated track, could and would be more reliable.

I seem to know more about public transit options in that area than many people who live there. It seems that many people simply dont know they can take Amtrak to Winter Park or a bus to the resort. Maybe they dont want to, maybe its education I dont know.

But a new dedicated train would draw attention and I am very doubtful people would refuse to take it, especially since more and more the stigma (which does exist) of public transportation is fading fast as people become more enviornmetally aware.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by rgb123

Part of the reason "no one" (not true really) uses Amtrak trains is because the freighters own the tracks -- Amtrak is quite often delayed because they are at the mercy of the Freight trains, who are not always sensistive to the schedule Amtrak trains are trying to keep. Generally, commuters do not use Amtrak for this reason.

Trains on a dedicated track, could and would be more reliable.

I seem to know more about public transit options in that area than many people who live there. It seems that many people simply dont know they can take Amtrak to Winter Park or a bus to the resort. Maybe they dont want to, maybe its education I dont know.

But a new dedicated train would draw attention and I am very doubtful people would refuse to take it, especially since more and more the stigma (which does exist) of public transportation is fading fast as people become more enviornmetally aware.

It is really not a question of knowledge, If there is a more efficient and lower cost method of travel, people will find out about it and use it. Econ 101

In the economics class I took, the lowest cost option always wins. People will pay more for the environment if the value is reasonable. People are very good at measuring utility. For me the analysis would be something like ...I can buy carbon offsets for my car for $30 a year or I can pay an extra $40 every time I take the train....

I am not saying people will refuse to take the train, some people will , but I just havent seen any kind of evidence that would convince me that enough people will take the train to relieve the congestion on I-70. Historically it hasn't happened and economically it makes no sense. - unless they can save time...which means there is still a jam on I-70 and you fixed nothing.

[rgb123]

I have noticed the fee for Amtrak is amazingly good -- if you are travelling far. If you are only going on a short trip, it is not always a good deal. The metra in Chicago charges $5 for a weekend pass and you can ride all weekend. That is a good deal. It is also extremely reliable.

But we are not talking Amtrak. We are talking about a new train that would be specific to that area (which would have more in common with a commuter train like metra than Amtrak).

I'd also be willing to bet that Greyhound travels that corridor, and probably cheaper than Amtrak.

by the way, I just checked

To get to Vail via Glenwood Springs using Amtrak (which would actually be a charter bus leaving from the Glenwood Springs station) is $17.50 to go from Denver is $21

[vegaspilgrim]

To everybody suggesting "reversible lanes," have you ever driven on I-70? How on earth do you put in reversible lanes on a steep, curvy mountain highway with many stretches where the E & W bound lanes are separated by grade? We're not talking about some flat urban freeway here!

I voted for "Do Nothing." Why, you might ask? I say let the free market decide-- the laws of supply and demand. Keep the road as it is, fixing the "supply" of highway user-miles, and let the individual motorists going up the slopes decide for themselves if it's worth it or not. If congestion gets bad enough, some people will simply give up on I-70 during its most congested times-- thus, lowering demand. The mountains are already overdeveloped and overcrowded as it is, IMO; we will need to learn to live with its current capacity for human development and recreation. "Do Nothing," in this case is the cheapest option, the best option, and the option that undoubtedly will be chosen.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

To everybody suggesting "reversible lanes," have you ever driven on I-70? How on earth do you put in reversible lanes on a steep, curvy mountain highway with many stretches where the E & W bound lanes are separated by grade? We're not talking about some flat urban freeway here!

I voted for "Do Nothing." Why, you might ask? I say let the free market decide-- the laws of supply and demand. Keep the road as it is, fixing the "supply" of highway user-miles, and let the individual motorists going up the slopes decide for themselves if it's worth it or not. If congestion gets bad enough, some people will simply give up on I-70 during its most congested times-- thus, lowering demand. The mountains are already overdeveloped and overcrowded as it is, IMO; we will need to learn to live with its current capacity for human development and recreation. "Do Nothing," in this case is the cheapest option, the best option, and the option that undoubtedly will be chosen.

There are very few things that Government should be involved in and infrastructure is one of them. When a city water system runs out of capacity, do you just say let the new people go without and the market will fix it? The mountains are not overcrowded by any means. I go backpacking and can avoid people for weeks at a time, or I can follow the trails and roads and developed areas and meet people. We pay tax dollars to keep the infrastructure required for the number of poeple using it. If a certain portion of the infrastructure is being over utilized, more money should be diverted to fix the problem. If you want to make all roads private toll roads, we should let the market determine what roads get improved, but when public money is used the criteria are things like traffic volumes and congestion - not whether the road is being used for recreation or some other politically popular use.

Reversible lanes do not have to connect to the existing highway the way additional lanes do so they can easily be placed on a different grade. That is precicely why it is a better option.

[Bagz]

Here is another lower cost option. Just put in a single bi-directional lane from Hwy 6 to the Winter park exit. Most of the congestion starts in that stretch and grows. Just that improvement would take care of 80% of the congestion.

Another argument for more lanes... It can be done incrementally and the whole project does not have to be complete before a positive impact is made.

[Brill]

Another argument for more lanes... It can be done incrementally and the whole project does not have to be complete before a positive impact is made.

How so? Until the lane is completed it will end at some point requiring traffic to merge into the existing lanes creating a choke point which leads to more congestion. When it snows, it will just be another lane that is backed up.

How much of this is volume of traffic and how much of it is stupid people? You find some people that want to go 80, others want to go 40. Many just don't know how to drive in the snow. When I moved out here I had concerns about taking my front wheel drive car into the mountains in the winter. The response I got was "it's not the snow to worry about, but the other drivers" I found this to be 100% true.

I think any kind of expansion to the current highway will not work. When it snows, it still causes congestion no matter how many lanes you have.

[CosmicWizard]

Brill wrote:

Until the lane is completed it will end at some point requiring traffic to merge into the existing lanes creating a choke point which leads to more congestion.

This is EXACTLY what happened with the lane wideneing project I mentioned in this post ( #8 )

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by Brill

How so? Until the lane is completed it will end at some point requiring traffic to merge into the existing lanes creating a choke point which leads to more congestion. When it snows, it will just be another lane that is backed up.

How much of this is volume of traffic and how much of it is stupid people? You find some people that want to go 80, others want to go 40. Many just don't know how to drive in the snow. When I moved out here I had concerns about taking my front wheel drive car into the mountains in the winter. The response I got was "it's not the snow to worry about, but the other drivers" I found this to be 100% true.

I think any kind of expansion to the current highway will not work. When it snows, it still causes congestion no matter how many lanes you have.

The answer is very clear for people who frequently drive this highway when it is congested. Going Eastbound, all the traffic for Winter Park and much of it for Steamboat merges onto I-70 causing the congestion as do the twin tunnels east of Idaho Springs. This problem is not weather related. It happens in the summer and the winter. At Highway 6, I-70 becomes 3 lanes and an alternate route to Denver exists, so there would be no bottleneck. Going westbound, since so much of the traffic goes up Berthoud Pass, the bottleneck will be minimized. Look back at my post, I didn't say this would solve the problem entirely, just that it would be a major improvement for minimal cost while we work on the solution.

I have found that when it snows, there are fewer people on the road and the congestion we are talking about is minimized. The worst weekends are President's weekend, Labor Day, July 4th and Memorial Day. Most of these weekends have no weather problems. This is neither a weather problem nor a "stupid people" problem. It is simply a capacity problem with the major bottleneck being Hwy 6 to US 40 (13 miles)

Just curious. Which camp are you in when it comes to driving in the snow - 80 or 40? Both are too extreme for me, I usually slow down about 10 MPH if I have fairly good traction, and neither one is a problem to me as long as the people going 80 stay in the left lane (no passing on the right) and the people going 40 stay in the right lane (it's not their job to control traffic speeds of other drivers.)

To get a clear picture of what causes the problem, get on the highway at 6:45, then the next weekend 7:00, then 7:30 Then 8:30. and going back, do the same thing, Leave at 2:30, 3:00, 4:00 and 6:00. It will be blatantly clear where the bottlenecks are, how they are currently relieved, how to make minor changes that result in major improvements and also you will see what the actual problem is and what causes it. Blaming the snow or other drivers shows a lack of understanding of the true problem.

[tfox]

Well, I'm tired of arguing so I'm going to allow the debate to continue without me. However, I'd like to propose shift the talk. Fact is, this is all a moot point since the third lane, reversible lanes, and transit are just pie in the sky. There's no money for such things, no political will, and they're not going to happen while TABOR is still on the books.

I'd be interested in what things could be done with a minimal budget (say, a few hundred million at most -- perhaps we could scrape together that much money). Clearly, that rules out my favorite option (rail). It would cover some tinkering to the highway, but nothing broad or expensive.

Some things suggested are: congestion pricing/tolling, various bus proposals, incentivizing higher vehicle occupancy, modest highway improvements (climbing lanes, etc), various means of limiting trucking during certain times, etc. These are the things that are being discussed that may actually come to fruition. Which of these, if any, may make some difference?