U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2014, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,515 posts, read 10,162,795 times
Reputation: 9714

Advertisements

A mere $1.8 billion to remove the viaduct and drop the road below grade - or $1.29 billion per mile. Of course the new road will have the exact same free capacity as the old road. The new lanes will be tolled. So, essentially it'll be the same damn road replete with the same amount of congestion - only it'll be partially underground. Nice. I've got a toilet they can flush the money down. End result is exactly the same. Morons.

Last edited by bluescreen73; 08-27-2014 at 11:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2014, 05:36 AM
 
Location: The Berk in Denver, CO USA
13,931 posts, read 20,135,101 times
Reputation: 22534
Default A better idea

» Unite North Metro Denver

"A responsible alternative is to close I-70 between Wadsworth Avenue and Central Park Boulevard, and to divert traffic north of the current alignment onto I-76 and I-270."

There is more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,184,677 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post
» Unite North Metro Denver

"A responsible alternative is to close I-70 between Wadsworth Avenue and Central Park Boulevard, and to divert traffic north of the current alignment onto I-76 and I-270."

There is more.
I think the alternative is ridiculous. 76 and 270 are only 2 lanes in each direction and I know 270 is constantly clogged. They'd have to spend billions adding at least 3 lanes in each direction on both freeways to handle all the 70 traffic. It would also add miles onto getting downtown from the airport. It makes no sense if I wanted to take the freeway from Central Park to downtown to go all the way up to Thornton and back down 25. And whatever "boulevard" they replaced I-70 with would just be a clogged up mess.

But I agree with the OP that adding the two toll lanes in each direction probably won't solve the problem either, other than getting the viaduct replaced before it falls down on its own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 09:18 AM
 
918 posts, read 981,751 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post
» Unite North Metro Denver

"A responsible alternative is to close I-70 between Wadsworth Avenue and Central Park Boulevard, and to divert traffic north of the current alignment onto I-76 and I-270."

There is more.
I'm all for that. But I'm not paying to build a replacement boulevard. Just throw up a few road close signs and divert traffic around the area. That's what North Denver deserves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 09:24 AM
 
52 posts, read 66,812 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post
» Unite North Metro Denver

"A responsible alternative is to close I-70 between Wadsworth Avenue and Central Park Boulevard, and to divert traffic north of the current alignment onto I-76 and I-270."

There is more.
CDOT has already eliminated this as an option.

"Recently, there have been many questions about whether CDOT is evaluating an alternative that would realign I-70 around Denver using Interstates 270 and 76. This alternative was eliminated from consideration early in the project process, as documented in the Draft EIS (DEIS).
Additional reasons for not considering this option a reasonable alternative for I-70 East will be included in the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS), expected to be available in Spring 2014. The alternatives being evaluated by CDOT for improvements to I-70 can be found on the Alternatives page."

On cost:

"Rerouting I-70 on I-270 and I-76 requires more than 12 miles of major highway
widening, which would cost an estimated $3.5 to $4 billion—twice the estimated
cost of the Partial Cover Lowered Alternative, which is the preliminarily
identified preferred alternative for the I-70 East Project."

http://www.i-70east.com/alternatives...s_10-29-13.pdf
I-70 East Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - HOME

More to come in the report release tomorrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,515 posts, read 10,162,795 times
Reputation: 9714
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHI-SF-DEN View Post
CDOT has already eliminated this as an option.

"Recently, there have been many questions about whether CDOT is evaluating an alternative that would realign I-70 around Denver using Interstates 270 and 76. This alternative was eliminated from consideration early in the project process, as documented in the Draft EIS (DEIS).
Additional reasons for not considering this option a reasonable alternative for I-70 East will be included in the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS), expected to be available in Spring 2014. The alternatives being evaluated by CDOT for improvements to I-70 can be found on the Alternatives page."

On cost:

"Rerouting I-70 on I-270 and I-76 requires more than 12 miles of major highway
widening, which would cost an estimated $3.5 to $4 billion—twice the estimated
cost of the Partial Cover Lowered Alternative, which is the preliminarily
identified preferred alternative for the I-70 East Project."

http://www.i-70east.com/alternatives...s_10-29-13.pdf
I-70 East Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - HOME

More to come in the report release tomorrow.
Total cost would be more, but the cost per mile would be about 75% lower. This deck park idea is beyond stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 09:39 AM
 
52 posts, read 66,812 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
I think the alternative is ridiculous. 76 and 270 are only 2 lanes in each direction and I know 270 is constantly clogged. They'd have to spend billions adding at least 3 lanes in each direction on both freeways to handle all the 70 traffic. It would also add miles onto getting downtown from the airport. It makes no sense if I wanted to take the freeway from Central Park to downtown to go all the way up to Thornton and back down 25. And whatever "boulevard" they replaced I-70 with would just be a clogged up mess.
Very true. Just think about all the traffic to get down to each of the existing exits between Pena and I-25. As the PDF shows - 50% of westbound traffic exits at or before I-25 (depending on where they get on, those heading north already have the 270 option).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
Total cost would be more, but the cost per mile would be about 75% lower. .
True, but both cost per mile and total costs are both important. Not to argue to the validaty of total cost for I-70, but when comparing the two, redoing the I-70 (removing the elevated, portion, moving below grade, etc.) is much more complex than widening existing roads, so you would certainly expect it to cost more per mile.

There are some good points in the PDF if one takes the time to read it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,184,677 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
Total cost would be more, but the cost per mile would be about 75% lower. This deck park idea is beyond stupid.
I don't have an issue with putting the freeway "below grade" where it's now a viaduct, but the "deck" thing is rather ridiculous. I'm sorry, but that part of the city is not some great area. I realize people live there, but they currently live in the shadow of a high freeway. Their houses are cheaper due to this. And they should have known that eventually, that thing was going to be widened/rebuilt. Adding a "Park Deck" will not result in some "kum-by-yah" gathering of the people north and south of the freeway and a revitalization of the neighborhoods.

They should just rebuild the freeway, drop the viaduct part down if need be, and add one free lane in each direction, making it 4 lanes all the way into downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 10:51 AM
 
918 posts, read 981,751 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
They should just rebuild the freeway, drop the viaduct part down if need be, and add one free lane in each direction, making it 4 lanes all the way into downtown.
I don't think the deck is exactly going to break the bank on this project. It's more of a token gesture to the residents, some of whom still feel slighted about having the highway go through their community, to get them to shut up because no one is going to spend $4B to move I-70 north, or spend even more money on some Grand Boulevard in place of the viaduct that they think will make the neighborhood more desirable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 11:07 AM
 
20,813 posts, read 38,998,701 times
Reputation: 19005
Side thoughts. I wonder how much of the traffic on I-70 in the Denver Metro Area (DMA) is local traffic and how much is long distance traffic that's just passing through, i.e., to and from points outside of the DMA such as vehicles moving Kansas to Utah, etc.

Myself, I think building interstate highways for LOCAL traffic is a disaster to be avoided. If enough of DMA's traffic load on I-70 is truly interstate-through-traffic then getting that load off of I-70 inside the DMA could lessen demand enough to obviate the need for more I-70 lanes inside the DMA. If this case is true, that money could be better spent building a new I-road from Limon, across the top of Castle Rock to Conifer then up the Hwy 74 route to I-70. This Denver bypass would take the load off I-70 in the DMA, but again, it only works if the through-load is there for the re-routing. NIMBY's and others would howl but they will no matter what.

I suspect that rebuilding an existing road like I-70 is a massively easier REGULATORY hurdle than doing all the environmental and other impact studies for building an actual new highway, not to mention the opposition, i.e., could well be a case of CDOT taking the easy way out to "fix" the problem in the shortest period of time. If this is true, shame on them....and the NIMBYs.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top