Weekend rush-hour fees proposed to unclog I-70
Romer plan would reward those who go before or after
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Friday, January 25, 2008
Photo by John Sopinski
I-70 graphic
Ken Papaleo / The Rocky/2006
Ski traffic heads east on Interstate 70 at Dumont. State Sen. Chris Romer is offering a plan he says could cut weekend congestion and increase speeds.
Skiers could be charged up to $12 for driving Interstate 70 during the weekend rush hour - or sent $25 checks for staying off the congested highway - if a lawmaker's idea gains traction.
Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, said his pilot program would need to reduce skier traffic by only 10 percent to 15 percent to get rush- hour motorists moving at a decent clip.
He said the public should not confuse his idea for "congestion-based pricing" with a plan to impose a toll on what he calls the Colorado economy's "carotid artery."
"You're just reallocating money from those who are time-sensitive to those who are price- sensitive, and that's a perfect market-based solution," Romer said.
Romer, a longtime skier and investment banker sick of sitting in weekend rush-hour traffic on I-70, said he'd be happy to pay to drive his "time-sensitive" family to the slopes during peak times if his fees could pay for others to stay off the road.
Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genessee, is interested in the concept of incentives to relieve ski traffic through his district, but he's against financially penalizing people for driving on a road they already own.
"Anyone who's been stuck in ski traffic on a Saturday morning understands there's a problem, but we should avoid big government solutions or something that looks more like a fee," Witwer said. "I like the idea of an incentive. It's a question of how to make it work."
Romer grants that he faces an uphill climb selling the idea of getting people to pay a fee for something that currently is free.
For that reason, Romer said the best course may be to start with positive incentives to avoid rush hour and move toward a charge later.
"The details need to be worked out because the public needs to have a positive experience with this pilot program," he said. "They need to know what the economists know, which is that a very small change in incentive or pricing will change behavior."
Eventually, skiers could be charged $5 to $12 per trip for driving up the mountain between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., he said. The price would adjust with traffic levels.
Skiers who choose to go early or wait until after the rush could get a $25 check in the mail or a coupon to spend that much at a slopeside restaurant while they wait out the afternoon rush.
One possibility is for the Colorado Department of Transportation to determine how many vehicles headed for ski areas could be allowed on I-70 on a given day.
Romer envisions setting up a Web site as part of the pilot project that would allow skiers to bid the night before heading to the mountains for one of the rush- hour slots.
Other skiers could sign up to miss the rush and then would get the rebate when they made good on their plans.
"What teenager or college student wouldn't take $25 for gas money to move their departure time up 45 minutes," Romer said. "Throw in a Chipotle burrito and you've probably got all of them."
Romer hopes to get Colorado's I-70 ski resorts to help manage the project. In one scenario, parking lot attendants would be armed with scanners that would register the times that cars arrived on weekends.
Using that information, it could be determined which skiers were on the highway during the rush hour.
If he can't get the resorts to take the lead, Romer said the state could have CDOT enforce the program, perhaps with license plate readers installed somewhere east of the turnoff for U.S. 40 toward Winter Park.
Phase two of the program, a year or two later, would take on the trucking industry's role in slowing ski traffic. Romer is eyeing a scenario where trucking companies could eventually be charged $500 for driving during the I-70 rush hour, or paid $500 for going early or waiting it out.
Romer said his program would exempt local traffic from paying any fees.
Even though his program needs some vetting and fleshing out, Romer said now is the time to take some risks and be innovative about loosening the I-70 ski traffic gridlock.
"The economy and the world around us is changing at an ever-faster pace. Government needs to be more nimble and willing to risk change," he said.
bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
January 25, 2008
5:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
ham writes:
Pay to drive I-70? Just another reason to stay home. Sitting in rush hour traffic is a big enough incentive to try different drive times. The government charging more and taxing more to try and change behavior is not a new idea. Government has been trying it for years.
How much money does the state make off lift ticket sales? So they want to tax the drive up too? Just another incentive to NOT make the drive and the states cut of ticket sales drops. Genius.
January 25, 2008
5:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Why do you think you can post the same article and delete all the comments from yesterday? Is Chris Barge that clueless or is it the minions at the RMN?
This had dozens of negative comments, is there an agenda here to push this ridiculous idea?
January 25, 2008
6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Solpatroller writes:
As one who travels I-70 each weekend and knows full well the traffic problems, I am pleased that Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, actually verbalized this idea. Now we know what the D after his name really stands for: Dumb, Dippy, Disgusting, Disingenuous, Deluded, Dope, and even possibly Deranged. Take your pick.
So Chris, how are you going to police all this? I have a suggestion. Why don’t you first create a Blue Ribbon panel of your buddies and have them meet for a year or so, then create a nifty little bureaucracy to manage and enforce all the rules you will make up? I know, you could call it Chris Romer’s Asinine Plan or CRAP.
And perhaps you could expand CRAP to include weekday rush hour.
January 25, 2008
6:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
alanbl writes:
Of all the idiotic schemes proposed by Democrats, this one goes to the top of the list! The Holy Grail of Democrats that will solve any and all problems is to INCREASE TAXES! Brilliant! I especially am interested in how he plans to pay the $25 bribe to everyone who doesn't drive during those hours. That should be a nice little hit to the treasury.
January 25, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Oddly enough, I don't find this potential solution to be that bad, quite honestly. I have no problem with charging a "rush hour toll" to try and alleviate the massive congestion on I-70 from Denver through Vail. At the same time, I'm not sure how either the charge, or the potential "non-peak rebate" would be governed. If there's a reasonable way to accomplish this, I'm all for it. At the same time, I somehow doubt that this plan is feasible as far as its implementation.
January 25, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
Looks like just another Blue Ribbon Commission tax hike/fee hike proposal. Just what the doctor ordered in order to stimulate growth in a soft economy. What's the next government money grab? The Democrats are totally out of control and out of step with our economy. This is just the type of financial moonbattery that led to the RECALL of California's Gray Davis.
Wyoming is looking better every day.
January 25, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
NSRider writes:
"Romer, a longtime skier and investment banker sick of sitting in weekend rush-hour traffic on I-70, said he'd be happy to pay to drive his "time-sensitive" family to the slopes during peak times if his fees could pay for others to stay off the road."
This is a classic... Is he saying that his "time sensitive" family is more important than every other family on the road?
January 25, 2008
7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
chief writes:
What if I'm not skiing?
Do I still have to pay?
January 25, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Typical Democrat. Their solution to everything is taking people's money.
January 25, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Art writes:
This is certainly a creative idea. At least Romer is trying to find solutions. This one has little merit, but let's not quit thinking about solutions. Of course mass transit to the ski areas would be the best solution. How about increasing the use of the ski train to Winter Park, and setting up other options for the ski areas on I-70?
January 25, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
GrayOwl writes:
What a goofball! This is not a solution; rather it is yet another attempt by Democrats to promulgate a punishment against anyone who dares live, breath or act in a way those Democrats do not endorse. The true solution is to either improve the highway or figure out mass transit along the I-70 mountain corridor. Yes, it's very expensive. But what is the alternative? An auto-train to get people and their cars to Summit County and beyond is one way. A train or monorail (not a car transport) is another way. But trying to, in effect, fine Americans for driving over highways that they already have paid for through taxes is a very, very bad idea. It also is impractical. How do you determine which cars are skiers so you can charge them? (No, not all skiers carry skis on top of their cars; some rent near the ski area.) And how do you avoid really victimizing people who live one place or another who are simply going about their daily business, whether visiting medical facilities in Denver or whatever? Surely, even the Colorado Legislature can see the folly in this -- and spend taxpayer-financed time on something realistic.
January 25, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
kilclimbz writes:
This is bs. My tax dollars pay for I70. Now this senator wants me to pay more money to use I70? Sorry senator, but it sounds like YOU need to leave earlier. I have no problems with I70 traffic. generally I do leave before the times proposed, but if I don't then sitting in traffic is what I get. This is just a guarantee that those with money can access the resorts when they want. Again, bs.
January 25, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eric writes:
I agree that something needs to be done...and I think Romer has lit the candle. I do not think that the Ski Fees will ever work due to the complexity of tracking the motorists. I think the best solid idea is a Light Rail to central ski hubs like Bethoud Pass and Silverthorne. I am sure people would pay $20+ to miss the headache of traffic and weather. Plus think about all the tangible eceonomic pluses of these additional lightrail hubs. Hotels, coffee shops, ski shops, and gas stations would follow the hub locations.
January 25, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Wow! Can't really believe just how poor a idea this is!
I would be all for skiers and the ski industry paying for additional capacity or participating in the cost of some alternate mass transit. After all this will serve a select number of people and an industry not the entire state. But to pay drivers to stay off the road? I am not a skier, I would rarely drive I70 in the winter .. will I get $50 every weekend during the ski season because I stay home and do not drive I70? We're going to let the ski industry handle the funds for this? Do you think this might lend itself to some question about the accounting? This would be a logistical nightmare, and I would question the legality of this against exsisting regulation about how the state does business with outside vendors
This is just plain stupid and frankly - bone headed!
A program to serve the WANTS (not needs) of a select group who want everyone else to accoiadate them!
Give me a break!
January 25, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Look, I totally agree that I-70 needs to be widened along with mass transit (train, monorail, even bus rapid transit!) as well, but anything along those lines will take years to design, build, and complete. Some sort of congestion pricing might not be inappropriate in a situation like this, as long as some way to determine who's using the road during peak times, who's using it during non-peak times, etc., can be determined.
I don't think this is a way for government to make more money, I think it's a way to try and alleviate congestion by charging those who choose to use it during peak hours and rewarding those who use it during off-peak hours.
January 25, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
kayaker80206 writes:
This sounds interesting but complicated to implement. But what happens when it snows and everybody is late? I would prefer sometype of mass transit option so I don't have to drive at all.
Our family already does something similar. If we leave our house by 6:30, we can get breakfast before the lift opens and not have the traffic hassle. We usually get 1-2 hours of great uncrowded skiing before the masses arrive. Often then we leave a little earlier than others because we have already skied alot.
January 25, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
RJS07 writes:
At least someone is thinking outside the box a bit here. Frankly, I don't ski, and don't drive I-70 during those hours, and don't particularly want my tax money spent to widen it for the ones who do--I won't benefit from that at all. This plan would at least give people a choice, and isn't all that much different from the HOV lane charges. People need to realize that just building it bigger is not going to do much more than cost a lot of money. Chill out and think it through people!
January 25, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
Why not use the fees to build a Tunnel from say Morrison to Keystone? It wouldn't be the longest in the world... (thats between Switzerland and Italy.) run a train through it. use red rocks parking for all the unused cars. Utilizing Geothermal vents for the electricity needed. congestion solved, pollution solved... without further need to widen I-70.
January 25, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
mkdenver1 writes:
You have GOT to be kidding me. Only a democrap would come up with this absurd idea.
So let me get this straight; this damncrap wants to tell people "don't go to the mountains or it's going to cost you." Um, they were put there for ALL to enjoy! So the state is behind on upgrading the highway, we all understand that. But the government doesn't have to penalize people for the countless mistakes C-DOT made 40 years ago!
So in order to charge people for driving I-70 to enjoy a day of skiing, this democrap wants to set up toll booths and cause even more traffic delays? What's next? Make everyone buy an ExpressToll pass and debit it that way?
Yeah, this will be REAAAL nice on the state's economy. I've already read one article where a family from the midwest is now flying to Salt Lake City for skiing at Park City which is just a 20 minute drive away from there and very little traffic delays. They used to fly to Denver and drive to Summit County, but because the state became lazy and are all of a sudden now noticing they're 40 years late, they now go to SLC. For the record, that article is from the latest issue of Vail Valley Magazine.
Buncha bullcrap if you tell me. Once a democrat always a democrat.
January 25, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
mkdenver1 writes:
froward69,
Your idea is worse than the state's! Sorry, but that's not a good idea. Part of the drive to the mountains is to check the scenery and what a lot of us just don't realize how much of a priveledge it is to see such views. I don't think I would enjoy spending an hour inside a tunnel and you can't even use a cell phone and your only view is lights and concrete bricks around you.
January 25, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike1969 writes:
These posts are good but I also recommend you call or email Chris Romer at:
CHRIS ROMER
Colorado State Senator, District 32
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4852
E-Mail: chris.romer.senate@state.co.us
Example
Chris,
1) Why should the people of Denver have to pay to use roads that we already paid for with our tax dollars?
2) If you put up toll booths and people stopped to pay the $12 or whatever you are proposing don’t you think that might slow down and back up traffic?
3) As a volunteer member of the Loveland Ski Patrol I’m wondering if you would really charge people to get to their volunteer jobs?
Did you know that the Loveland Ski Patrol is made up almost entirely of volunteers? There are 180 total volunteers on the Patrol at Loveland and did you know that most Colorado resorts have some sort of Volunteer Ski Patrol or Volunteer On-Mountain Guest Services Program? Guess where most of these Volunteers come from.
A monorail might be a good idea, or how bout banning truckers during peak times? Maybe we could put up some billboards telling people to use low gears, not their brakes, down hills and on corners (which causes a chain effect and in my opinion is the biggest cause of backups) and maybe we could move the Georgetown Bighorn Sheep away from the road with some fencing, that would stop the Texans from stopping to take pictures…heck maybe we could even ban the Texans all together.
Charging me to use a road I already paid for to get to my volunteer job stinks….Go Fish!
Please call me or email if you would like to discuss
4) On the other hand I usually do go up early. I generally leave by 5:30 AM to avoid the Texans. I go up approximately 50 times a year so under your plan would I get a Rebate check for $1250?
January 25, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
mkdenver1 writes:
Ok, for the record, yes, I know the traffic is bad. My wife and I go skiing at least once a month and we just figure that's our punishment for not leaving at the right time. But in a way the congestion is good. It shows people love coming here and enjoying what the mountains have to offer!
I think the state should add some sort of mass transit up to the mountains and give people a choice to either drive or take a train. Of course, charge people a round trip fare to use the train. Much better than charging drivers to use I-70!
It's too bad the Union Pacific RR company couldn't route that rail line that goes from downtown to the mountains along I-70, instead of north to along US 40 and then back down to I-70 after Ski Country is already passed! Otherwise, I'm sure we'd have a completely different Ski Train and we wouldn't be in this situation today.
So build a light rail/commuter train of some sort, maybe put it through a few tunnels so to not disturb the townfolk or wildlife but yet still have a very enjoyable ride to and from the mountains.
January 25, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Theoldguy writes:
JUST SEND ME THE CHECK!
(A new and upcoming liberal)
I'm new at this and trying to stay ahead of the curve.
Fellow Conservatives...Peggy Noonan just wrote a column stating that the Republican Party has been destroyed by Bush and the rest of the bunch. It is now time to pile on the "Freebie Wagon".
How am I doing?
January 25, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
bockclocker writes:
I would agree with this proposal if they used the revenue gained from this to put in checkpoints along I-70 and I-25 to catch all the drug runners and people smugglers coming up from the US's southern border.
On the other hand we may need a couple of those illegal workers to work in Chris's new toll booths.
January 25, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
hanmel4 writes:
I would support a light rail or train of some sort, but not a fee on top of taxes and gas prices.
January 25, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Fine, if noone wants to pay a fee for using I-70 during peak travel periods, where do you suggest getting the funding to pay for an expansion of the freeway and addition of mass transit from?
<crickets>
January 25, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Glad I'm a snowmobiler, and as such won't be paying ANY fee.
January 25, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Realitymensch writes:
Congestion on I-70 is something I used to explain the theory of constraints--10 years ago! A constraint is a bottleneck, the slowest link in a system that sets the maximum rate at which the system can move. So you have to get the most out of your constraint. Which is what Sen. Romer is proposing, but it sounds fiendishly difficult to administer and implement. And increasing the capacity of the constraint is in this case massively expensive and long-term. An easier short-term solution might be to create incentives for people to ski during the week. These might include lower priced lift tickets and incentives for employers to institute flex time. The ski areas might well buy into the plan if they are shown how they can maximize revenue by doing so--after all, they have to run the lifts no matter how many skiers are on them and an empty chair is a chair no one has paid for.
January 25, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
Democratic idea? You all have got to be kidding. "Congestion pricing" and tolling have long been pushed by Republicans and libertarians. Check out the Independence Institute's position on it. Its former head John Andrews got elected to the legislature and pushed through the bill that opened the I-25 car pool lanes to toll payers wanting to avoid the congestion. The "tragedy of the commons" and the idea that free roads aren't free is a refrain of the conservatives. Romer's idea sounds straight from the libertarian playbook.
January 25, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
I have family that live in Silverthorne. We go up late on Friday evening, or later in the afternoon on Saturday, and don't leave until Sunday after 8 pm, so we don't see the skier congestion. But that is just us.
Now, if the State wants to place license plate scanners on public roads for record keeping, I will stop displaying my plates, and face possible fines for doing so, instead of letting Big Brother encroach upon my liberties.
I like the idea Froward69 came up with, as that is VERY reasonable for the skier traffic. mkdenver1, if you would prefer to continue to drive, no one is preventing you, just providing ADDITIONAL OPTIONS for those that would rather take a high speed train up the mountain, specifically to ski.
The only good out of the pitched proposal by the gentleman from Denver is to keep commercial trucks off I-70 during weekend "rush." There also should be increased enforcement of left lane passing only by CSP, to get those that either can't or won't go the speed limit or better.
January 25, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
bockclocker writes:
Skiing and snowboarding are for sallies anyway. You guys should stay in town and do a real sport, like roller blading or softball.
January 25, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
I've been opposed to toll roads since driving through Kansas in the 1960s. I've changed my mind. The time has come. Maybe someone at the Independence Institute can develop an enforceable, fair, and adequate method of doing so.
January 25, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
How about just making an HOV lane to encourage busses and carpooling? The congestion and the price of gas are more effective than a tax. Not all Democrats think like Romer, he is basing his idea on usage fees which is more of a libertarian idea. Low cost mass transit would be a real Democrat solution. Remember greatest good for the most people. I guess he must think skiing is elitist anyway as expensive as it is.
January 25, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
A railway would probably be the best solution. It could be elevated above the roadway with a design that would allow snow to fall between the ties and if electrified, could use some of the braking power of downhill trains to assist uphill trains. To maintain dependability, it should be carefully routed and be high enough to avoid snowslide areas. Provisions should be provided to build future express tracks or "short run" stub terminals.(express from Denver to the ski areas with minimal stops, locals for shopping, schools, ect) as experience and public input shows they are found to be needed
January 25, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
The estimated cost to keep Colorado's transportation system functioning at it's current capacity is $123 billion. The current funding is only $75 billion. That is a difference of $48 billion!
Where is that money going to come from?
The feds sure aren't going to ante up any money because all of our taxpayer dollars are going to fund Bush's pet war in Iraq.
It's easy to criticize people with ideas on how to fund the system and then whine about the state of our highways. You may not agree, but you'd better have an idea on how to come up with the funding.
Just like anything else, the transportation system ages. Does anyone remember the hole that suddenly appeared in I-70 last year? That was in a part of the highway that isn't even recommended for improvement. What's the true state of affairs with the rest?
We all need to remember that this is the Republican legacy in Colorado. How long were the Republicans in control of the state legislature? Not to mention Owens, the transportation governor. Give me a break!! Owens and his cronies had the time to fix this problem but couldn't be bothered.
January 25, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
boulderredcoat writes:
Finally a politician with some bottle! If folks like mkdenver1 want CO to catch up on 40yrs of I-70 neglect then a forceful solution is required. People will not change their habits without both carrot AND stick measures.... e.g. Boulder has excellent public transport, but 85% of journeys are by car, as there is no deterrent to driving. London charges 16 bucks to drive in to the city and guess what? People don't! No-one on this forum whining about fees has managed to come up with a solution that would actually work like Romer has.
And no, I'm not a democrat. Where I come from we consider Hillary a right-winger.
January 25, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Car pool and HOV lanes.
That's another poor idea in general! Then charging for it, the so called Lexus Lanes - another foul smelling, lousy idea to bennifit the few andthe rich!
Look at the north end of I25; had they used the same Real Estate and probably at less cost (avoiding the gates and the walls and extra on and off ramps etc)there could have been built two lanes in each direction open all the time. That would have served a lot more people and eased the congestion there even more than the HOV lanes!
January 25, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
nowhearthis writes:
Alright conservatives, time to turn down that fat man screaming on the the radio and listen. This kind of tax is being proposed in congested areas all over the country, like the Loop in Chicago or Manhattan in New York. And surprise! Mayor Bloomberg is a REPUBLICAN! Just goes to show people with actual problems have bigger things to worry about than bipartisan muckracking.
Also, this plan will never pass, so just chill.
I'm in transportation. I'm working on the gridlock problem. A train is obviously the solution.
January 25, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
Dan2, License plate scanning is aready in use here on Illinois tollways with the nonstop I-Pass system. (no slowing down needed). Chicago has vans that can scan hundreds of plates an hour just driving down the streets and supply instant information about the drivers unpaid parking tickets and who knows what else. Pretty scary.
January 25, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
bockclocker writes:
CO Native. How did you guess I'm from Texas? Anyway, you guys should welcome our influence to your cowtown. We could show you a few things on how to run things around here - like partaking in activities that don't require you to get frost bite.
January 25, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
rybo74 writes:
As a Native I'm all about everyone from Texas/California leaving...problem solved. A Texan calling Colorado a cowtown...pot meet kettle. What possible influence do you have to offer other than showing us your states lack of activities, poor diet (One of the uhealthiest states in the nation) and wranglers. Thanks, we'll pass.
January 25, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Patriot writes:
This guy must be on drugs, and good ones at that. It's the only way I can see someone sitting around and coming up with an idea like this. It's time for a real solution, super train up the middle of I70, paid for by bonds. The ability to get up and down the mountain quickly, efficiently, and not have to drive. Now that's an idea I could embrace. Where do we get these elected officials with these stupid ideas?
January 25, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
rybo74 writes:
On a more serious note the only solution is a monorail. This was proposed almost 15 years ago (when it would have been proactive) and the low income votes turned it down. It was argued that only the higher income brackets would use/benefit from this proposal and the tax increase was not worth it. What these uneducated voters failed to realize was that Ski revenue is our number two source of natural resource income (next to water) which helps to provide jobs, which in turn provide housing, which then provides more jobs..you know the drill, therefore enhancing their own lives if they chose to do so. A monorail would allow more individuals to use these natural resources and add dollars to our local economy.
January 25, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
warrengfunk7 writes:
Are you serious Romer?
Mag-Lev is teh way to go for I-70. Denver wants to get International flights added to DIA and International tourism is the way to get them. World Class ski resorts and Black Hawk-Central City are the ways to attract them. However, the last thing a bunch of High-speed train loving Japanese tourist want to do is travel on curvy, icy, mountain roads for 3+ hours each way.
A high-speed mag-lev line from DIA-Union Station to some of the top Colorado mountain destinations is the decongest I-70. Think Denver to Aspen in 45-minutes. Denver to Black Hawk in 20-minutes. DIA to Denver in 8-minutes.
With a Mag-lev, as congestion increases, you don't have to widen the track in a narrow canyon - like with roads. You simply make the trains longer and increase the frequency between trains.
Another thing to think about, is a high-speed mag-lev line connecting Denver to Colorado's world class resorts would open the door for Denver to land host city to a future Winter Olympics. In fact, if Denver where to apply for hosting an Olympics it could then possibly land additional federal funding to construct this mag-lev line.
January 25, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
wgabo writes:
I don't think this is the best idea, but at least it's an idea. It's funny to see the automatic knee jerk responses about dems raising another tax as I really don't see much difference between this idea and the toll to drive in HOV lanes. These hot air arguments accomplish nothing.
For another idea, look at a map of I-70 and 285-both are roughly parallel. 285 is not the super highway I-70 is, but with a bit more work, it will get skiers to at least Breckenridge in less time than a packed I-70. If you then look at Boreas Pass, it is a more direct route than through Fairplay and makes the drive on 285 roughly the same distance as I-70 from Denver. While this would take a good amount of highway engineering to provide for winter driving, it could be done. If removing 20% of the traffic load on I-70 is the goal, this would most likely accomplish such. With the huge infrastructure expense of rail, an alternate driving artery really should to be considered first and this one is mostly built.
January 25, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
seeingeyeseesall writes:
... and stopping all the traffic to figure out who's a skier and who isn't won't add to congestion?? People who travel to and from Denver from the mountains as I used to do for child visitation, for example, would they be exempt? Who decides who's using the road for recreation and who's got no choice but to sit in the traffic because it is the only route available?
This idea is just stupid. A high speed monorail combined with a $20.00 toll on I-70 on weekends for anyone who doesn't have two people in the vehicle to pay for it makes more sense. Until there is an alternative to I-70 one can't expect traffic to abate.
January 25, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Winter Olympics?
That's funny ....
Been there, done that and I'd say the answer ... is still NO!
And let's not tear up more of the Colorado and the high county (285)
Again for the convenience of a few and mostly the rich
Skiers: Go screw up Utah or Idaho, I think we've done enough damage to Colorado accommodating all the transplants
January 25, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
polytico writes:
I-70 needs to change and Romer is finally proposing a market-based solution for that change. Every other option that I've seen--building a monorail, expanding I-70, etc.--would take a huge tax increase or tax diversion to pay for. I'm certainly not comfortable paying for I-70's overuse with tax money that could be used for education and health care. Drivers will make their $12 back in saved gas $$ when their drive takes 1/4 of the time, and we can use the fees to pay for those bigger improvements, without new taxes. Way to go, Romer, for this innovative idea.
January 25, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Contempt_for_Texas writes:
I wonder if we enforced the borders if that would ease congestion. I am always hearing about vans full of illegals overturning on i-70.
January 25, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
There's a better way to reduce congestion and speed travelers up the mountain. Two words: Rocket Cars.
By the way, I intend to go skiing every day. I promise to go in off peak times. Please send me my $25 per day in advance. Make it $50 per day and I promise not to be on the road at all. Thank you.
January 25, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Contempt_for_Texas writes:
Ummm It already costs too much to go skiing, plus driving in the snow can be scary, and my wife doens't like me to leave her with the twins. So I may just stay home and play other games or whistle. I say go for it.
January 25, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
You can build infrastructure without raising taxes or fees. It's call bond issuance or private investment. Not EVERYTHING needs to be solved by the Government. The price of usage for a train, or high speed anything would need to be enough to eventually pay off the cost of building and maintenance. Government is NOT the solution.
Diff,
You REALLY want those skiers and tourists to not ski in Colorado? Prepare to see a jump in excise taxes, fuel tax, income tax, toll tax, and every other kind of tax to off set the $85 MILLION that the ski industry brings to Colorado. Maybe instead of being jealous of the "rich" you could actually try and educate yourself and improve your own situation.
Hey boulderredcoat,
Welcome to America, where we actually have enough SPACE for people, in general, and especially in Colorado. When we have 28 million people living along the I-70 corridor, instead of the 800,000 that do now, maybe we will need to have a usage fee. Way to compare apples to watermelons, tool.
January 25, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
gkh writes:
Whaa, whaa, whaa -This is a great, fiscally responsible idea - with refinement. Those that whine about this idea must be working at McD’s, must love paying for gas to sit in a cold exhaust filled parking lot, must hate skiing, or just don’t like spending time with family - or they are just too stupid to understand simple economics.
$12 to save 2 – 3 hours a day? Cost is $4 - $6/hr – put 3 people in a car (encourages carpooling) and cost drops to $1.3 - $2/hr. In my book I’d much rather pay a couple bucks to spend more time on the slopes, enjoy some apres’ (resort towns benefit) or get home and spend more time with my family – or put in a couple extra hours at Wal Mart at $5.85/hr – plus benes! – NET GAIN
Sitting in traffic for several hours on a precious weekend – that’s the real cost.
Monorail? Widening? Tunnels? – Pipe dreams that cost all taxpayers and benefit no one other than contractors. Trillions and 20+ years to implement. Not to mention the loss of wealth to those along I-70 in places like Idaho Sprgs and G town who have their land taken for expansion. Factor in the continued loss in productivity from sitting in traffic over the 20 yr period, fuel costs, plus the cost of accidents and damage incurred over that 20 yr period attributable to volume and the true cost of those solutions probabaly doubles. These solutions tax everyone in Colorado and throughout the US, and the taxes benefit mainly the Front Range skier, corportate road users and construction contractors – the cost translates into increased productivity on maybe 15% of the total usable road hours (weekends).
It costs you more for gas than the proposed fee to spend an extra 2 – 3 hours idleing on I-70 (2 – 3 hrs at 50 mph = 100 – 150 equivalent miles of travel at 20mpg = 5 – 7.5 gallons x $3/gallon = $15 - $22 for gas (some fuzzy math) – REDUCED DEPENDANCE ON FOREIGN OIL!
To streamline the plan – lease (not sell) the road to a private operator (Conglomerat of ski co’s???) during peak times – let them pay the state for the lease (revenue anyone?) and they can manage the process and pay a proportionate share of road maintenance (cost/tax savings anyone?) based on usage during their lease. Process is easily manageable these days. This is a true market based solution – not a new tax!!! A tax is something you have no choice about paying - like paying an extra $2 for a pack of reds. Using I-70 during peak hours is a choice –
This could be up and running in 2 years!
Nothing in life is free – those of you that think you don’t pay to drive I-70 when is’t a 70 mile long parking lot must have spent too much time sucking up fumes on the weekends in traffic!
January 25, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
katalyst writes:
Take the cost to the environment of congestion along I-70, plus the opportunity cost of the extra hours all those I-70 drivers spend in traffic, plus the cost of the extra highway maintenance needed because of those drivers, plus the cost to the ski and tourism industries of people sitting in their cars instead of in a restaurant or on the mountain, plus the cost of slow shipping for all the businesses that use trucking on I-70 to distribute their goods. All Coloradans (and some unfortunate Texan transplants, see above)are forced to shoulder the burden of those costs. Doing nothing isn't an option and I don't want to wait 5 years for a fix that can be done with a little economic incentivizing tomorrow! I think Chris Romer is on to something.
January 25, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Contempt_for_Texas writes:
It seems to me that the amount of the toll you pay should be directly correlated to how expensive your car is. That way those of us who don't have much money and drive cheap cars can still get up to the hill w/o breaking the bank and those who have more money can pay what they owe to society. From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.
January 25, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
yeti writes:
Chris- I have an even better idea... maybe the citizens of the ski towns should charge an additional fee for your constituents when they invade up our little towns. Let's face it, up here in the mountains we get overrun with Denver folks who clog up our streets. With your ingenious fees for driving on I-70 and us piling on additional fees, maybe it will be too expensive for Denverites to ski at all.
So cheers to you. Instead of coming up with a solution for I-70, you just find a way to punish those who would drive up to go skiing.
Just one thing, you may want to consider whether those skiers (who will no longer think very highly of you), will vote for you the next time around. But I'm sure that nobody in your constituency skis, so I would not worry too much about that.
January 25, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
ok mkdenver1,
those views are soooo breathtaking in a Blizzard with bumper to bumper traffic...
A Tunnel would be safer without closure and much more efficient, moving day trippers in and out of the high country. when I-70 is closed because of a blizard you could still get home on the train through the tunnel.
That spectacular scenery is better in the summer anyway. when their is little traffic congestion. one would still be free to drive then also.
I would sleep that hour in the tunnel without worry as to others from Texas/California knot knowing how to drive in the snow.
Safety first.
January 25, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Contempt_for_Texas writes:
I don't get why every one loves skiing so much it does nothing to increase the homeland's production. If everyone stayed home and chipped in we could make Colorado the Utopia the old country was.
January 25, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
boulderredcoat writes:
Now then Dan2, why on earth are you so impolite to people you don't even know? Why be impolite to people you DO know?
If comparing congestion charging in cities is a poor surrogate for I-70, then I will point you to E470 (plenty of space to concrete over everything there), on which you can zoom along to the airport at 70mph (unlike 36-225-70etc)... because you have to pay. I hope that is a better example for you.
January 25, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
mkdenver1 writes:
Dan2,
I'm not opposed to a train to the mountains; in fact I love it. He was suggesting a fully enclosed tunnel from Denver to Summit County. If I was paying let's say $20 a head to ride the train I would like to at least have something to look at instead of darkness, maybe some lights, and concrete bricks. Ever taken the Ski Train? You don't have to worry about driving, snow barely slows the trains down, and you actually get to see tons of scenery that is only seen from rail.
I can't imagine a NYC subway system in the mountains!
January 25, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
kris writes:
When I moved to Denver I thought how great it was to have the Rocky Mountains in your backyard and how I could play in them anytime I wanted AND for free. It's pretty wonderful to be able to take a drive up the Hill and hike or just get out of the city for a few hours when you are on a limited income.
I think this has as much chance as passing as paying kids in Georgia to go to school.
January 25, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
mkdenver1 writes:
froward69,
That closure was the first one in many years and they only closed it because, as you said, safety first. Regular train tracks primarily on the outside would be the way to go with a few tunnels where needed.
Snow hardly slows down trains plus a constant 70+ mile tunnel would just quadruple the cost of keeping the tracks outside most of the time.
Everyone,
EASE OFF ON THE TEXAS BASHING, PLEASE! My wife is from Dallas and there is nothing wrong with Texas nor it's citizens! They just choose to come here because we have more to offer when it comes to skiing!
Heck, if it weren't for out-of-staters, our city would still be the dirty, dusty unattractive cowtown it once was prior to the population explosion of the early 90's, which I am very proud to say I contributed to with a move from St. Louis.
January 25, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Wow there's a lot of clueless people posting here that have such predictable responses.
This is probably the cheapest possible solution to easing traffic during rush hours on I-70. It would only affect skiers as proposed (if enforced by parking attendents at ski resorts) and would have exceptions for local traffic (and probably for ski patrol volunteers as well I'm sure).
It is impossible to ease traffic on I-70 without money. Some people respond that this is some 'tax' but this is really very similar to the approaches that libertarians usually propose for solving various problems by trying to let market forces play out in a way that's augmented by government.
If you don't want to pay (but instead recieve money) you simply go at a non-peak period. If you choose to go during peak, you pay. Is that so evil? So impracticle? As opposed to what? Adding another lane that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars (or more)? Building a high-speed rail link that would cost even more? Other traditional proposals have been looked at several times over the years and no-one wants to pay for it so we live with the congestion. Heck, they couldn't even build a test track to try out the rail link idea a few years ago because people voted it down when the resolution came to a public vote. This could also encourage young people to ski more often who could otherwise not afford to go, so this should be a boon to the ski resorts as well. If it worked to reduce congestion it would also save people a lot of money in gas (not to mention time). If you are critical of this idea, then tell us what your idea is to fix congestion on I-70.
January 25, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
bockclocker writes:
Marxist - go back to Iraq or whereever your motherland is.
mkdenver - I'm with you one easing up the Texan blasts. you all are starting to offend me. However, Denver is far from a cowtown even today. Look around your office and count how many people are wearing the Colororado Tuxedo (all denim) for dressdown Friday. Denver needs more out of towners moving here simply for the culture. Exhibit #1 the pinheads in the above comments, exhibit # 2 the mass exodus to the "hills" for a lame waste of time skiing and boarding in subfreezing temps.
January 25, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
zenman writes:
We are punishing the poor and rewarding the rich. Why don't we just build a mountain monorail and give everyone access. There no way to widen I 70 that is cost effective.
January 25, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Texas - Tejas
Belongs to MEXICO. I say let them have it!
If god had meant for Texans to ski, bulls**t would be cold and white!
January 25, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
schloe writes:
Get a clue Romer. Seriously.
January 25, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Contempt_for_Texas writes:
My motherland happens to the oasis of open-mindedness, freethinking, nature loving Austin, TX. So bockclocker you are bashing on one of your own. Dillon Panthers RULE.
Maybe we could have the resorts open during the week only to CO natives and open on weekends only to out-of-towners/transplants. That would cut down on traffic.
January 25, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
genuinearticle writes:
Nice idea, but you have to validate all the users of the plan. Ski ticket receipts with date and time would be one way to track "users" - that way $25 incentives don't go out to everybody.
Pretty much tracking plates or maybe a scanner system like E-470 has - since the destination is a ski resort have the resorts just offer $25 off the bill if you can prove you left after the rush period. Maybe add $12 on the bill of those who are scanned in during the rush?
Then the government can just transact with the ski companies on credits and debits.
January 25, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
ezekiel777 writes:
The only thing this proposal will do is close down I-70, the ski industry and most local businesses within the mountain corridor....
Gov. Dick Lamb would put a "closed" sign on Colorado... (his own admission on channel 12 last week). This proposal is a green effort to do just that. Shut down the proposal...not the freeway.
January 25, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
graytransinc writes:
You politically inclined (deranged) people are nuts - this isn't a Republican - Democrat problem at all. Quit trying to spin it that way. It simply shows that Colorado has the best skiing in the country & lots of people want to hit the slopes when they don't have to be at work. I sit in that traffic almost every weekend from Thanksgiving until after Easter. I don't like the traffic but I love to ski. This tax/toll idea is idiotic. Let the skiers themselves decide if the skiing pleasure is worth the traffic hassle. And until more lanes are added to I-70 or a world class ski area is built on Lookout Mountain how about CDOT put some port-a-potties at a few of the exits in less inhabited areas.
January 25, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverVol writes:
Good gosh people! You kill me. How and when did traffic on I-70 become a Republican vs Democrat thing? Last time I looked traffic doesn't care what political party you're affiliated with. I 100% agree with you Democrat bashing Republicans that this is a stupid idea. Here's another totally stupid idea - why doesn't everyone just drive the damn speed limit, that way there would be no congestion? Oh wait, I bet it's those damn Democrats that are hitting their brakes every two seconds. On the other hand, I bet it's those damn Republicans driving 45mph instead of the speed limit in the left hand lane. Yeah, sounds stupid to me too.
January 25, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
What the hell is a" time sensitive family"?
Is that going to be another bull*hit saying like "carbon footprint"?
Watch out for the time sensitive family driving the big carbon footprint.
Chris Romer must be taking advantage of the medical pot law or something.
Only someone sitting around with their friends smoking a joint and eating Doritos could think up a scheme like this.
Like,Dude,why don't we going boarding this weekend?No man I ain't sitting in that traffic.Like why don't we pay people not to drive up to the mountains and then we can go like 75 miles an hour.Awesome,you da man! Chris.Now stop bogartin.
January 25, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
bjones73 writes:
How about we tax Romer and the rest of the bunch of do nothings in the state government $12 for every day they continue to ignore the fact that I-70 is antiquated and changes need to be made?????
You know, it's funny, it's those jerk offs that try to get as many people and jobs to move here, but then refuse to deal with the changes needed in infrastructure to keep up with that growth!!
They'll approve cookie cutter, over prices, over built housing developments left and right to collect the tax revenue, but they should look at the result: If we build them, they will come!!!
Idiots.
Tax them for their inadequacy in dealing with the problem! That is an I-70 built for a 1970s population!
And as far as your "time sensitive" family is concerned - get a grip and get hold of your ego!
I bet your "time sensitive" family drives a Hummer and ejects additional carbon from your seldomly used vacation home in the mountains.
What a joke.
January 25, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jwags writes:
First of all this guy is an IDIOT!!!! If he and his time sensitive family are to lazy to get their a@$es out of bed then guess what? YOU GET STUCK IN TRAFFIC MORON!!!!!!! Maybe charge a few extra bucks on every vehicle registration in the state and add a few bucks onto season passes and have the resorts take a few bucks from every day pass with out raising the price of the day pass. Use that money to help build a transit system up to ski country. Pretty sure they can afford this. Last I checked non of the resorts are hurting for money. Also, this happens 2 days a week for about 4-5 months of the year. What about the traffic problems EVERYDAY during morning and evening rush hrs!?!?! Are we gonna charge every person driving during rush hrs to get to their job and give those who leave early a refund!? Here is an idea to help rush hrs traffic. Get rid of the f$*%ing HOV lane. That is another stupid idea. Let's take 3 lanes of usable traffic and cut it down to 2 during the busiest times. How does that make sense? HOV lanes make traffic WORSE because there are less lanes that can be used by a majority of the population because it is not feasable to car pool for most people!!!!!!!! Maybe I should run for office and solve all the problems because clearly the people in office can't!!!!!!!!
January 25, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
SenWidestance writes:
ahh.......no. Oh, by the way, all you new I70 rookies, STAY OUTTA THE FAST LANE IF YOU'RE NOT THE FASTEST. I miss the old days when you'd get run off the road if you hogged the left lane.
January 25, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
KMKMSMAM writes:
Romer should investigate how CDOT made non-compete agreements to stop improvement of local roads in order to fund highways like NE-470. He should investigate why CDOT pursues highways plans like NW-470 that were voted down by the public. He should investigate the risks to the regional economy when public infrastructures like 470 are 'leased' to foreign corporations.
The suggestion to tax I-70 skiiers is as ridiculous as a proposal to tax DTC commuters who use I-25 or C-470. It is as likely to succeed as a proposal to tax exit ramp cars at exits near Invesco field on game day. It is as anti-business as a tax on parking at/near shopping centers in Christmas season.
This guy deserves censure every bit as much as the representative who kicks a cameraman.
January 25, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
The guys that keep calling this senator an idiot are idiots themselves.
Consider: do you know anything about traffic patterns and traffic controls? Are you aware of the non-linear relationship between the amount of cars on a road and the average velocity they travel at? Apparently not.
A small reduction in the number of cars on the road can substantially increase the speed at which everyone travels. If this proposal managed to get people off the roads during rush periods then people could save so much in gas (from not idling so long) that it could easily pay for the added fee, especially if you are driving a gas-thirsty SUV. And is your time worth nothing?
And where the heck is your proposed solution? All the ones I've seen have already been rejected by the voting public (another lane or a rail line due to costs). Are you going to wait until you have to drive at 5mph all the way to Winter Park before you think something needs to be done about it?
January 25, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Houstongolfnut writes:
Some great comments here in response to a nutty idea. The backups of I-70 begin where it goes from 3 lanes down to 2 lanes and ends where it goes back up to 3 lanes. That is all that is needed--one more lane through Georgetown and Idaho Springs. Lots of people slow down to read the inane info displayed on the overhead electronic message boards and that distraction is an easy fix.
January 25, 2008
7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Great. An example of intellegence. All they would have successfully done is move the rush hour times earlier or later.
Doesn't take much of a high IQ to figure that out.
What a waste!
January 25, 2008
8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Romer, a longtime skier and investment banker sick of sitting in weekend rush-hour traffic on I-70, said he'd be happy to pay to drive his "time-sensitive" family to the slopes during peak times if his fees could pay for others to stay off the road.
Yet another example of "ME FIRST. I AM MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU. I CAN PAY BECASUE I AM FIRST AND MORE IMPORTANT."
ME ME ME ME ME.
PRIDE AND SELFISHNESS.
AH THE AMERICAN WAY.
January 25, 2008
9:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
jwags writes:
In response to joggle. I have never idled $12 worth of gas out of my car on I70.
January 25, 2008
10:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
cmurphy writes:
Romer's proposal is an interesting one, in terms of starting a serious dialog. It is not a good or appropriate solution, however.
Romer says "that's a perfect market-based solution."
What happened to the word "free" as in "free market-based solution"? Markets work due to their voluntary nature. The described program is not voluntary. If the road were a private road that we had to pay a fee for, then yes this would be free market solution based idea. Government being involved, altering the nature of a resource shortage and compelling everyone in two classes to participate is not at all a market based solution.
Let's see more people carpooling to go skiing and snowboarding.
www.skicarpool.org is a good start.
How about working with them to develop a voluntary program where either single riders or carpoolers can sign up for time slots when they intend to head up in the morning, and see relative to other times what other skiers/riders are doing, and then voluntarily reschedule their time slots to ones that aren't as congested?
Plus I question if the feds would have an issue with Romer's plan. As 1/2 of the cost of the interstate highway system is paid through user fees already, and the other 1/2 by the federal government.
Anyway, I find Romer's idea specious. The flaw is the role of government intervention in the market inherently makes it involuntary and not a free market. That's a market distortion.
January 25, 2008
10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
cmurphy writes:
Now I'll turn around and contradict myself when it comes to trucks. It takes a rather small number of them doing the wrong thing to completely f up the traffic flow. Routinely a trucker decides he's going 25mph and should be allowed to pass someone going 15mph. NO. Not when there are only two lanes. And not uphill. And certainly not when it's storming. It's fn dangerous. He should slow down to 15mph and just stay in the right lane until he reaches the top and is going at a more reasonable speed. I know they're just trying to earn a living but I swear to Thor how stupid are some of these guys? Good fn Zeus learn to drive, truckers!
The penalty for not having chains, should be a lot higher than the $500 fine it currently is because obviously it isn't sinking in to some of these guys. And in particular during a snow storm, any vehicle (but especially trucks) going below a certain speed, (45mph, 55mph, whatever), should be in the right lane or they get nailed with a fine. And not some dinky $25 fine.
January 26, 2008
5:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
XColoradoRrs writes:
The best solution a is monorail. Low impact to the environment, fast, and elevated. Unfortunately, the sale tax increase to create this was defeated. So now we have another proposal for a "tax", that will never relieve the congestion.
January 26, 2008
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
mbappe writes:
I like the theory of discouraging the use of I-70 during peak-use hours. But I'm not sure I like the idea of encouraging it's use during off-peak hours. Paying people to use the road will tend to increase it's usage, right?
Why not use the proceeds to subsidize busses and/or help with the expenses of maintaining the road?
On the other hand, isn't the congestion itself a deterrent to using the road during peak hours? One that affects rich and poor equally?
Does the proposed fee/rebate system boil down to a method of getting money-sensitive people out of the way of people who are not as money-sensitive?
January 27, 2008
6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Did I miss something? No one blamed the problem on Bush.
January 27, 2008
5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
PMSXpress writes:
Has everybody forgotten the summer weekend traffic also? It started getting pretty bad in the mid 80s, particularly at the eastbound 70/40 junction on Sunday afternoons. It isn't just ski traffic. So will there be a plan to extend this fee in the future when Romer decides its a good idea? This plan smells fishy for several reasons. Some sort of mass transit train or other mode seems like the most reasonable answer at least for ski traffic and I would dig into my wallet to support a project like that. We don't ski much anymore, but I do commute often and resent Romer's suggestion that I should pay the state to reach clients and earn my living.
Investment banker Romer's time sensitive family needs to get their butts out of bed and moving earlier, that's all.
vudumom is right, the man's smoking somethin'.
January 27, 2008
5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
More pay-toliets, we need to truly tax the byproduct of humanity.