I-70 Mountain Corridor

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by 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!

Thank you for trying to understand the problem before coming to a conclusion. Too often I see people who believe their idea is the cure all for all problems. The fact is that this is a very unique situation. The traffic jams are almost entirely due to increased recreational travel on the weekends. In the winter it is skiers, and in the summer it encompasses all of the recreation available in the mountains. The traffic jams are west bound in Sat and Sun morning and east bound sat and sun afternoons. For the most part there is not a real problem on the weekdays. Almost every car has multiple occupants because very few people recreate in the mountains alone. You have to take this into consideration when comparing rail solutions because typically you are comparing the price of a single ticket to the price of driving a car for commuter traffic. In this case you have to compare the price of multiple tickets. You also must consider the distance traveled. Since Traffic is one way in the morning and the opposite in the afternoon, the most energy efficient method would be to have enough rail cars to bring everyone up in the morning and the parking capacity for the cars then they all go down in the afternoon. Otherwise they will be empty half the time.

For these reasons I see no other logical conclusion than bidirectional lanes. 2 lanes would double the capacity we have now during peak times in the direction the problem exists, and only means increasing the number of current lanes by 50%. Another lane in each direction would cost more to build and have less impact on the actual problem. Rail would be not used and have no impact on the problem.

[CosmicWizard]

Bagz

Your solution has some merit, but it seems like an expensive, unsustainable, short term solution at best. IMO, in the long term, railroads and public transportation make more sense.

[jazzlover]

I'm no longer worried. $7.00/gallon fuel will take care of the traffic problem quite nicely. $7.00 sound ridiculous? Well, that scenario has gone from the "Never gonna happen" to "I really doubt it" to "I'm not sure, anymore" to "Man, I sure as hell hope not" in just the last few months, according to some oil experts I listen to.

Those who will pipe up and say that $7.00 fuel isn't possible are likely the same ones that said $4.00 fuel could never happen in the US. "Never" isn't as long as I thought, I guess.

[CTC]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

First, I've probably spent more time "enjoying our great mountain country" than 90% of the posters on this forum (5 decades of having that country nearby will do that)--and most of that without setting foot (tire) on I-70. That mostly because I-70 and all of the development it has spawned has turned most of its length into a recreation ghetto ****hole that I don't wish to have anything to do with.

Second, I do think that subsidization of highways, to the exclusion of all other forms of transportation, is a disgrace in this country for which we will suffer terribly in the future. I would suggest that people read these books--they might just realize how they have been taxed, hoodwinked, misled, and--ultimately--impoverished to feed the highway/automobile monster in this country. They also show that there ARE alternatives. Those books are:

Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take It Back, by Jane Holtz Kay

Getting There: The Epic Struggle between Road and Rail in the American Century, by Stephen B. Goodard

Allies of the Earth: Railroads And the Soul of Preservation , by Alfred Runte

Aside from all of the disagreeable pork-barrel waste--along with the environmentally destructive nature of an I-70 expansion and related development it will spawn, I see no benefit in squandering another big ****load of taxpayer money on a transportation mode and corridor with a dubious future in the far more austere and energy-starved environment that lies ahead. It's like buying $500 a place setting for china when the only food in the house is going to be some moldy Twinkies.

Let's see, within minutes of my house in Gypsum I can be biking through Glenwood Canyon, fishing the Eagle/Colorado, hiking through miles of open BLM, and under an hour be at several wilderness trail heads in 3 different mountain ranges-maybe you need to leave the pavement once and a while-plenty of good CO recreation left along the I-70 corridor-just saying

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by CTC

Let's see, within minutes of my house in Gypsum I can be biking through Glenwood Canyon, fishing the Eagle/Colorado, hiking through miles of open BLM, and under an hour be at several wilderness trail heads in 3 different mountain ranges-maybe you need to leave the pavement once and a while-plenty of good CO recreation left along the I-70 corridor-just saying

I don't consider a bike trail scrunched next to a roaring, traffic-filled Interstate highway much of recreation "opportunity." A good chunk of the town of Gypsum also sits hard against the Interstate where one can "enjoy" the urban sounds of constant traffic and smell plenty of exhaust.

There are indeed some very nice areas remaining around some of the I-70 corridor (and I know--I've probably been around more of that country than most people), but they exist IN SPITE OF that POS highway, not in any way because of it, or the development it has spawned. I have the misfortune, I guess, of knowing what all of that area was like before the Interstate, before Vail, before it was "loved" so @##$%&#$!!! much. I can't think of one thing that has been built there in the last 50 years that has improved the area one bit over what Mother Nature put there in the first place. A matter of historical perspective, I guess . . .

[smitty858]

I agree with the post regarding increasing the price of the ski passes. In fact, there was an article in Skiing mag (I believe last year) concerning the traffic problems on I-70 related to the cheap cost of season passes. Increasing the cost of the passes would eliminate or reduce many weekend day-tripers, meaning less congestion on I-70. However, I doubt this will happen given that the resorts make a lot of money on day-trippers from parking and food. The new Epic pass from Vail Resorts will only make things worst this season.