I-70 Mountain Corridor (Sheridan, Vail, Gypsum: house, buying, restaurant)

[tpabes]

Originally Posted by steveco.

I didn't know that twinkies molded??

Yeah according to Family Guy, they are the only food that can survive a nucluear holocaust.

The problem I would have with doing nothing, is when I-70 is bottlenecked, you are losing tourism $ for the state. Also, you are affecting the residents of cities all along the corridor, affecting their ability to travel and also to recieve goods from the trucking industry. Finally, if I-70 is bottlenecked you are creating a dangerous situation with emergencies, as far as people trying to get to that emergency.

I don't know the answer, if I did I'd be a rich man, but something would have to be done. I guess my vote is for the train, because I can't see where lanes can be built in areas like Idaho Springs.

[LITfoto]

The powers-that-be - who are now the powers-that-were started hashing this one around long ago. I moved to Colorado in '87 and I've been hearing the elevated rail idea for almost as long. And everybody bitched! And now it's 20 years later and 20 years worse. (As I write this now, I-70 is shut down on Vail Pass and likely Frisco/Silverthorne and it took me 1/2 hour to get to Breckenridge!)

Unfortunately, at this point in time there is likely no real viable solution.

Everything...and I mean everything! changed after the '94 earthquake in the L.A. area. Within six months of that I noticed the first changes in Denver traffic. As that influx, Californicated its way up into the mountains, I70 was destined to become the nightmare it is today. Don't get me wrong I'm not blaming (all) Californians but that is the year the change to out-of-control growth and tons of cash poured into Colorado.

I grew up in Phoenix in the 70's and 80's and have witnessed the same kind of bass-ackwards "planned growth" that has led to that city being the mess it is. The leaders in the late 70's and early 80's sat on their thumbs about a freeway loop. Now, some 30+ years later, it is complete. Had they actually started when it was first brought to the table it could have been finished sooner, cheaper and more efficiently.

I, for one, hold out no hope on either a quick-fix or a long-term solution to the traffic nightmare. I just sit on the deck of my Wildernest condo and enjoy the glow of brake lights from Silverthorne to the tunnel!

[SheridanL]

Just put in WHATEVER costs the least in fuel!! DONE DEAL!!

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by SheridanL

Just put in WHATEVER costs the least in fuel!! DONE DEAL!!

Here's the problem. The most fuel-efficient solution, by far, is "conventional" rail--especially if it is electrified. Switzerland's superb passenger rail system is a prime example of this technology--it works. The problem is that "conventional" rail--that is, an "adhesion" railway (not cog railway--called a "rack" in Europe; a good local example is the Pike's Peak Cog railway) can have an absolute maximum grade of around 7%. 4% is usually considered a practical maximum, and 2% or under is preferred. People have been looking for routes over the Continental Divide from the Clear Creek drainage to the Western Slope that would have an acceptable gradient (4% or less) since about 1870. The only way to achieve it would be to drill a long tunnel (probably 6 miles or more) under the Divide. That, too, is problematic because so much of the rock in that whole area is "rotten" decomposed granite, which means the tunnel must be artificially supported for nearly all of its length. Geologists and drillers found that out the hard way when the Moffat railroad tunnel was built in the 1920's, and again when the Eisenhower tunnels on I-70 were built in the 1970's. Drilling a tunnel would be damned expensive, but could be done. As for the "monorail" pipedream--it's just that. The actual cost to build one would be astronomical, and the jury is still out on whether or not it would be energy efficient.

So, if the public is not willing to invest in a conventional rail solution with a tunnel, the most fuel-efficient long-term solution may be pretty low-tech:

a) not as many people use the route, or they use it less often;
b) carpooling;
c) a bus.

No free lunch.

[mgold]

They need to increase the season passes to $2000 each. Then no one will buy the season passes and the traffic will be fixed. Season passes are so cheap that everyone and their brother are able to afford them and then come up to the mountains, drive I-70 in their 2 wheel drive and crash! Even if it's dry! The ski resorts need to grab hold of the situation and build a monorail. They have the money.

[Idunn]

I was one here advocating a train, and quite possibly a monorail. And that would be along the I-70 right of way, between the opposing lanes. This didn't overlook the steep grades involved which are considerably more than a conventional train could handle, although I didn't specifically address the solution in that earlier post.

Although admittedly not conversant with all the relevant technical issues involved, I still believe some type of train along I-70 feasible. While some type of cog mechanism would surely work, probably slow. More practical might be a Maglev train on a monorail track. The physics of a magnetic propulsion system might actually allow for significantly greater grades. There are health safety issues involving magnetic fields in such systems, but these can probably be properly addressed.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it is beyond me how installation of a monorail track could be anything but significantly less expensive than conventional rail or building more roadway. After all, most of that involved no more than placing individual piers at a distance from one another, with no attendant disruption of existing road traffic, and then laying the horizontal cross sections in place with a crane. In other words, no need to prepare any type of conventional bed for either track or road. Little construction on site, most everything efficiently pre-cast.

As an aside, for anyone considering the merits of allowing the legislature to make portions of I-70 a toll road, consider history. Such things start small but soon take on a life of their own because special interests come to rely on the revenue stream. Consider the many bridges in the US which were promised to have tolls only long enough to recover construction costs but retain tolls even though long since paid off. True, everything needs maintenance but the better portion of such tolls goes elsewhere. Where do you expect any monies collected from an I-70 toll to go, other than surely out of your pocket?

Do you think Switzerland would be any better off with less trains and more roads?

[jazzlover]

People act like there is a choice--build rail (either conventional or maglev) or build more road. There isn't. Either efficient rail is built, or whatever fancy highway gets built is going to eventually go largely unused--because most of the American public is not going to be able to afford the fuel to drive on it. Someone said that Americans are fools, because "oil is going to get too damned scarce and expensive to waste by burning it in cars." You have to wonder what kind of catastrophe it is going to take to get Americans, and their equally clueless leadership--including the Colorado clowns--to get their collective heads out of their you-know-where's and develop a coherent energy-efficient transportation policy. If they don't, Summit County and Vail will join the long list of Colorado ghost towns that were abandoned when they could not adapt to new economic realities. Building more @#$%^&*!!! roads is not the answer.

[onthamove]

70 is a pain to get up or down to but i was there for two weeks in denver and the weekends were by far the worst, weekdays during non-rush times 70 isnt too bad really

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

People act like there is a choice--build rail (either conventional or maglev) or build more road. There isn't. Either efficient rail is built, or whatever fancy highway gets built is going to eventually go largely unused--because most of the American public is not going to be able to afford the fuel to drive on it. Someone said that Americans are fools, because "oil is going to get too damned scarce and expensive to waste by burning it in cars." You have to wonder what kind of catastrophe it is going to take to get Americans, and their equally clueless leadership--including the Colorado clowns--to get their collective heads out of their you-know-where's and develop a coherent energy-efficient transportation policy. If they don't, Summit County and Vail will join the long list of Colorado ghost towns that were abandoned when they could not adapt to new economic realities. Building more @#$%^&*!!! roads is not the answer.

People don't ride trains. Even the train advocates can't fill the trains. Trains will never solve the problem because people still want to drive. There is a set of tracks going to the front door of Winter Park, yet there is not enough market demand to set up a continuous ski train. If you want to take a train, take it to Winter Park. In the mean time lets solve the real problem we have right now. There is not enough road capacity to satisfy the demand for the number of cars going to the mountains. More unused trains will not solve that problem - no matter how many ($$%^E^%#)s' you want to use in your posts.

[SheridanL]

I really do see all sides of this post/problem but,...

I don't understand what part of the traffic is causing the problem (or the majority of it anyway)

Is it "skiers" mostly on the weekends?
Is it "commuters" all week going from the foothills/mountains, to work in the city?

Is it the trucking industry ( the ONLY way to get through the state to the cities?)

I can see how train/monorail wouldn't work for anyone but the ski resorts because, once you get off at the destination...how do you get home? How do you get to your job (I'm sure the train wouldn't drop you off at your doorstep!



















People will almost always go and explore, even if it is going to a new restaurant...shopping a little, after a day of skiing. So, the businesses that aren't the resort itself would suffer when no one can get to them in their car.
This would also cause a bit of a "ghost town" like Jazzlover suggests.

Fuel costs are going to be playing a big roll in everything we do but, people may just decide to play in their own neighborhood as opposed to flying on their vacations. Of course, that may mean driving to playgrounds in their own state ( such as us in Colorado) which would increase traffic on I70!!
If this happens, it would be great for the bussinesses that suffer in the summer months(when most take their vacations)...but then the nightmare skiing traffic would extend into every season!

I don't see what will work in the long run but, I am sure we will be TOLD what will be best for us!