I-70 fee idea angers skiers

Posted by analytixman on January 29, 2008 at 3:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is not just a skier issue. It's not fair to tax the skiers when you have an issue that is year round with hikers, hunters, campers, etc. There is only one real solution and no one is excited about it but it boils down to the widening of I-70. Romer needs to stop wasting legislative cycles on a band aid when surgery is required.

Posted by Oh_Wise_One on January 29, 2008 at 5:52 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by VVVV on January 29, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Designing a highway for rush hour volume is a waste of resources and time, only benefitting the small minority at the expense of us all. Sitting in bumper to bumper traffic is the punishment people get for being lemmings. Address more important issues with our money, like prisons, education, and health care.

I think the wikipedia bill writing idea is excellent. Anything to get more people involved in government will improve it. Especially since those people we elected to "craft" legislation usually end up ignoring the pressing issues and only crafting methods to get reelected.

Posted by Earl on January 29, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey having the public write the bill is a great idea and shows that we dont need him on the payroll. romer is nothing more than a self serving jerk. he doesnt want to sit in traffic to go to winter park, new flash for chrisy, take the train and you wont have to drive at all.

Posted by windbourne on January 29, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Earl, Romer is the guy PUSHING the train. The idea of charging a toll during ski hour rush hour actually makes sense. He wants to use a good chunk of that money to pay for a high speed monorail (much cheaper and faster than a regular train in the mountains).

As a skier, I like both of these ideas. I am tired of sitting in traffic. I do not like that the mountain air that I have watched for 30 years is deteriotating. Nobody likes taxes or tolls, but this has to be paid for. We either spend 8B widening the road, only to see that it will be full again in the first, or we go with something that others will use. A regular train will not work. It will cost just a tad under a high speed, but will take 2-3x as long to make it up there. In fact, it will run at about the same speed as the cars. So why would I pay for train when I can take my car? I will not. But a train that can make it there in a fraction of the time, can serve the casinos, downtown, etc., that is worth the 5B required for it.

Posted by Dhakala on January 29, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't believe three people assaulted a legislator and got away with it. At least Romer has a sense of humor.

Posted by ColoNative on January 29, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is not about traffic. It is about another politician envisioning another plan to fleece taxpayers. This guy needs recalled and sent to California or another tax and spend communist state.

Posted by ColoNative on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't believe that only three people assalted him. LOwer my taxes and stop inventing new taxes.

Posted by Mike1969 on January 29, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

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 single 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 of them…heck maybe we could even ban the Texans all together.

Posted by jacka on January 29, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good for Romer, a democrat prposing a free market approach and avoiding the mantra of more government 'investment' cause we all know that means more taxes

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To me, the fee seems like a way to price out groups of people, while maximizing the convenience for the wealthy. The best solution - albeit the most expensive - build a friggin train! It might cost a lot not, but it will save so much in the future as Denver continues to grow. It would only require a few stops and you could use the Summit Stage Coaches to pick of skiers a few central locations to shuttle off to the resorts. Think about it Colorado. It is by far the best way to avoid massive traffic jams and future pollution.

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Geez, does this thing just put random words in your posts? I meant to say "it might cost a lot now, but..." and "to pick up skiers at a few central locations to then shuttle off..." Anyway, you get the point.

Posted by bthye on January 29, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Mike - let's get the trucks off the roads during peak hours! It's an idea that's been floated in the State legislature several times over the years, but apparently the trucking lobby is powerful enough to keep it from going anywhere. Banning Texans isn't a bad idea either - that would clear up the ski slopes as well as the interstate!

Posted by YIOTA on January 29, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Widening I-70 or building a train is a long term solution with many questions to be answered. What it the expected travel outlook on the roads for the next 10, 20, 30 years? What are the costs? Would the installation of a train still require the highway to be widened? While this is very worthwhile topic that needs to be addressed sooner than later. We should think about short term solutions. There are a few things that come to mind for the short term. The first one is the mix of trucks and cars during the peak times. I believe that stopping the flow of trucks on Saturday and Sunday during those times would help traffic flow smoother and reduce some backups. The other thing that comes to mind is where Hwy 6 / 119 merge onto I-70. That merge always creates a back up and once a driver gets past that have smooth sailing until they get to Hwy 40 or Georgetown. Maybe a light at the merge to control the influx of cars onto I-70 could help that backup. After all most of the cars on Hwy 6 are just trying to beat the traffic, but those cars help to create the traffic when they merge.

Its similar to a place where a road narrows, the cars that get over early watch people zoom by in the lane that is closing only to force their way in farther up. The problem is that everyone has to slow or stop to let them in and that creates the backup.

There are numerous studies on how backup start and amazing one car that hits its brakes can cause a chain reaction that ripples into a major slowdown.

Posted by TigerGrl on January 29, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a mountain native….I feel that Romer is on the right track as far as something needs to be done indefinately. There are people on that road driving rental cars who have no idea how to operate them in the snow…just because you have 4 wheel drive doesn't give you the authority to drive like an idiot, causing danger to yourself and others. It is frustrating that I cannot even go visit my parents for the weekend because I'm suck in this ridiculous traffic with "tourists". I say pay or get the hell off the road, if you have the money to ski then you should have the money to pay to be on that road. Something needs to be done and if this is a way to make money to improve the road conditions I say just do it. Natives shouldn't have to suffer because idiots want to get their thrills on the slopes….besides you people are the ones who tear your ACL's, run into trees and make the evening news because you think you know how to ski. Leave this to the pros and get the hell off my road.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't sitting in slow traffic enough of an incentive to people to go some other time? Apparently not, but then they pay for it by spending valuable time going slow. It's market forces already at work. I don't see a need to help out stupid people, nor do I see a need to punish them more than they punish themselves.

Don't like to drive in so much traffic, go another time, earlier works better. I-70 isn't going to be widened to accommodate a narrow peak traffic volume, no highway is constructed that way. Once volumes are high more days than they are not, then the widening will happen.

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

TigerGrl - that is so ignorant. Those tourist that you despise so much, dump millions into our economy. Heck, if you live in the mountains, chances are you depend on them for your livelihood. Bad idea. What, because you were born here, you have more of a right to the mountain? A toll is a terrible idea and people would just take other roads - like frontage, or 285 up through Breck. And if you have the money to ski??? A lot of us spent our last dime on our passes and equipment. It's a lifestyle that you clearly don't understand.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

TigerGirl, how nice that you are a mountain native, that however does not give you a priority right to use the road. How typical it is, this attitude that whatever it takes to make my life easier is what is best for all. You use the road, maybe you should pay too. Choosing to live in the mountains (or anywhere for that matter) means living with the facts on the ground. In your case that means limited road infrastructure and drawing "non-natives" into the area.

By the way, it's not your road, or your slopes, get over yourself.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ban trucks on the weekend? Are you crazy? The stuff I ordered online is on those trucks. Not to mention my food, and all the stuff that shows up at Wal*mart. Besides, trucks pay higher taxes than cars, lots of fuel taxes and generally have the right to use the road even if it is inconvenient to you. Plus, if the trucks have to stop for Saturday and Sunday, they will stay in rooms that are then unavailable to skiers.

Posted by temurlan on January 29, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My3pugs. Well done....couldn't have said it better my self.

TigerGirl...ever leave the state of Colorado? Do you take your arrogant and selfish attitude with you when you visit other places and make Coloradans look bad?

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

my3pugs - no one said ban trucks on the weekend. Just peak hours. They could still deliver your online goods, or whatever. They just don't have to do it when the road is packed. If trucks drove mid-day or overnight, the congestion would be lessened greatly.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Build a train? Why would I take a train? I'd have to be on time then. I'd have to live my life according to some faceless corporate timetable and it never is ready when I want it to be. You take the train and stay off my road so I can come and go as I please.

The secret reason people like trains.

Seriously, visitors from "away" go up during light traffic hours and don't really suffer. A train would hardly be used during the week. Building a train to run on weekends is a waste of money and would never be able to recover its costs. Train with taxpayer cost, not going to happen. There's a reason private money won't build a train, the return isn't there. All of you who suffer from going to the mountains at the same time will just have to develop coping mechanisms. Whining is not a coping mechanism, going a different time of day is.

Posted by YIOTA on January 29, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anchovie 34, thanks for the clarification. I was only talking about during peak times on Sat and Sun. Such as 6am - 9am in the mornings and 3pm - 6pm in the evenings and only during the main skiing season (at least for now or until we see the actual affect). Although, I dont think the trucks are as big of a factor in the evening. I believe the evenings are due to everyone leaving the at nearly the same time. Just after the last run or in tigergirls case just after tea and crumpets with mom and dad..

The roads are public and belong to everyone. We just need to figure out how to share the road usage responsibly. Since winter time means huge money for mountain towns due to skiing, then a small window to allow that traffic to flow smoother would benefit everyone. The truckers could sleep in and leave an hour or two later. This would probably make their trip up the mountain better as well. Im sure that driving in that traffic cant be enjoyable for the trucker either.

Posted by ladida on January 29, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not every skier or boarder is wealthy...I can't even afford season passes anymore, so I only go a couple of times a year now. This is ridiculous and not legal

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My3pugs - I would take a train any day over driving. Think of the advantages. 1. you don't have to drive. 2. it saves gas. 3. it avoids traffic. 4. i could stay in the mtns after a day of skiing and drink a few before hopping safely on the train back home. 5. it shows a sense of social responsibility to have and use reliable public transportation. It can't always be about you and your time tables. If it works trains can be effective in every other country, then there is no reason they can't work here. If you don't want to take the train, fine, drive your Suburban at 5 mpg, but I'd prefer to ride and relax on the train. See you on the mountain.

Btw, it doesn't have to be like the winter park SkiTrain. make 4 or 5 scheduled departures per day to accommodate more people.

Posted by O_TRAIN on January 29, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the lawmakers are looking for "outside the box", mass-transit ideas from citizens....how about a catapult. Fling'em up there in the morning and the ski areas can fling'em back at the end of the day.

seriously - mass transit - no fees

Posted by generalsn1234567 on January 29, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The idea of limiting truck hours works in downtown Chicago, but all the places are large buildings that have recieving room staffing on nights and weekends. It might work in Colorado for the large stores that probably do ovenite stocking, but would be a problem for businesses that are closed after 9 or 10PM and don't open until 9 or 10AM. As future malls are planned and built, maybe a common receiving area can be included for early AM deliveries.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

anchovie34, you think the trucks want to be there? Going slow? Lots of trucks already don't go at peak time. And yet backups still happen. Cars suffer breakdowns, unfamiliar drivers drive cautiously slow as they should, not all cars have the performance that yours does. Trucks have places to go and things to do that are at least as important to their operators as getting to your destination is to you. Believe me, if the drivers of those trucks thought it was to their advantage to take the road at a different time, they wouldn't be there holding you back. But they have schedules and priorities that place them there and congestion isn't a reason to ban vehicles. If it were, then banning cars with less than some number of occupants would have to be on the table as well.

Now that I think about it, banning cars with less than three people might be a good solution, we can establish parking locations eastside where you can pick up someone to get them up the mountain. Oh wait, ride with a stranger? Who do you think you ride with on a train? Oh yeah, the train is for everyone else, I forgot.

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

my3pugs - did you read my post? I would gladly sit next to strangers on the train. Quit being such a naysayer. It's people like you that keep the rest of us from making progress. No one would force you to use the train, but there are thousands of people that would like to have the option. If you want to be selfish and drive yourself, fine. Also, I always carpool to the mountain. I have these people, i call them friends, and we like to do stuff together. Obviously a hard concept for you to grasp. Also, it's about sustaining future growth. If you think traffic is bad now, wait 20 years. It's called foresight, another concept that seems foreign to you.

Posted by generalsn1234567 on January 29, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people are suggesting monorails. Monorails are good for having one train going between 2 points at regular intervals, but what would be needed along I 70 would need to be highly flexible to allow express operations mixed with local trains. Since a lot of dispatching and switching would be needed, especially if single track is built in some areas, a conventional 2 rail system elevated just high enough for snow to fall between the ties using conventional time tested technology would most likely be the best way, especially if changes are need after the first construction.

Posted by jgd on January 29, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YIOTA

***The truckers could sleep in and leave an hour or two later. This would probably make their trip up the mountain better as well. Im sure that driving in that traffic cant be enjoyable for the trucker either.***

Why should the truckers have to suffer, they get paid to get their loads to the destination in a timely matter?

I still think a time limit on the lift tickets would help solve the problem. Six hour limit, if you arrive at 6:00am you will be not be allowed on the slopes after 12:00 and might just as well go home. If you want to ski until 5:00pm then there would be no reason for you to arrive until 11:00 am. This would stagger the traffic pattern on I-70 and could solve the congestion problem.

The lift tickets could be time stamped at the time of purchase and checked as you board the lifts. Anyone going passed the six hour limit would be fined and barred from the slopes for specified time.

This wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

anchovie34, I like trains too, but face it, there are drawbacks as well.
1. I can't leave if I want to, I have to wait for the scheduled train.
2. I can't go to far from where the train/shuttle drops me if I want to.
3. The traffic/parking around the train station is horrendous.
4. What do I do if I miss the train?
5. Too many people taking the train prefer to drink a lot before getting on the train, they think that taking the train relieves them of social responsibility.
6. There are never enough bathrooms.

Posted by Usually_Quiet on January 29, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a mountain resident and a native and a previous skier and a current commuter there are a few negatives and a great many positives to creating a BETTER way to get through I70. In my opinion a train is a great option and having traveled in Europe I know it is feasible-yeah I know I should move to Europe if I want that.

I am sorry that some folks believe this is the “fleecing” of their hard earned tax dollars, meanwhile accidents are occurring that require tax supported services to rescue and clean, increased traffic = increased policing (more $), increased pollution = increased rules about what kind of cars we can buy (more$) I am sure there are many more.

Positives to a train:
Better way for tourists to travel therefore reducing potential accidents (my3pugs is correct-which is why when I travel I use public transportation to reduce my potential for an accident)
Less pollution – did you see the brown cloud last week - YUCK
Reduce delays – and who doesn’t want that option? Get to the mountain faster, spend more money, get dinner, have a beer after the last run-board a train and sleep. (I’m seeing a win-win here)
Commuters could use it and link into the light rail coming to Jefferson County (all you RTD haters-get over it)
Could be used year round for all activities and travel options
(FEEL FREE TO ADD YOUR POSITIVES)

Negatives to a train:
Cost – sometimes you have to spend money to make money
Impact on land – then again isn’t that ALREADY a problem?
Number of riders – I don’t agree that the ridership would be down on weekdays, in fact it could probably be mitigated by commuters, increasing skiers that come during the week and the possibility that more residents might take a day off and go to the mountains

Actually, as a mountain resident I did like the toll idea, granted it may not be legal BUT something needs to be done. Proactive now reduces waste later.

Posted by FloydHill on January 29, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wonderful Idea! You play, you pay! I hope this happens.

Posted by quitecontrary on January 29, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So far, I have not seen one solution in which the ski resort are involved in any way. They continue to raise prices, and skiing is cost prohibitive anyway. Like other businesses...if they want people to come and utilize their business, then they should be offering bus service from Denver to their resort and back. Buses seat between 30 and 40 people, so the impact will be fewer cars on the road. I am already paying taxes on I-70 twice (don't forget about the tax on your gasoline which some goes to roads).

By the way, are we going to tax the people going camping in the summer too? Same problem, different weather. The problem is geography (narrow valley, too many cars).

Or maybe we could do the odd or even license plates thing. You can only drive up everyother weekend to ski or camp?

Let's tax the heck out of everyone, then only the rich can partake in our beautiful state. Great idea.

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My3Pugs- to your points:
1. I can't leave if I want to, I have to wait for the scheduled train. - You're right. Just like all trains all over the world. What's your point? People work on schedules all the time, not really a valid issue...
2. I can't go to far from where the train/shuttle drops me if I want to. - Where do you need to go? From the train stop to the ski hill. Guess what, that problem is solved by the great bus system in summit county...
3. The traffic/parking around the train station is horrendous. - worse then the parking and traffic up to and on the mountains? I don't think so. Another invalid point...
4. What do I do if I miss the train? - then take the next one. Or drive. Another bad argument...
5. Too many people taking the train prefer to drink a lot before getting on the train, they think that taking the train relieves them of social responsibility. - This is speculation...
6. There are never enough bathrooms. - again, just speculation...

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

anchovie34, calm yourself.
I do read your posts, but not the instant that you post them.
I don't care much for winter sports and am NEVER in the traffic that slows you down or takes up space on your mountain. I do pay taxes and don't feel a need to subsidize your preferences as I expect you don't feel a need to subsidize mine. As for your nasty comments on whether I have friends or a sense of foresight, well, you discredit yourself when you make ad hominem attacks, so keep going. I did not attack you or your ideas, I only reasoned with them and offered my opinions on trains and trucks. A lot of these comments on this subject amount to whining about how bad it is. Going at a different time is always a choice, it doesn't cost more, or require state laws.

Posted by chief on January 29, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's start with carpooling...

Posted by jaybyrd on January 29, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another naive political scion. Apparently Romer, a skier, does not like to deal with ski traffic himself, so he commandeers free radio time and print media space with off-the-wall ideas to enhance his visibility and to make his personal life easier. Let's see, with all of the issues facing Colorado and especially citizens, I am guessing expeditious ski travel ranks about 102nd. The answer, as Chris has discovered, is to vary your ski travel times so as to reduce and AVOID the heavy traffic (Brilliant!)Public trans does not work in Colo. because, like their ancestor's horses, Colorado-ans like their cars; you know, those evil machines that libs and Dems seem to feel are just ahead of cancer and nuclear war as the scourge of the planet.
Chris, get a job and quit living off of your old man's name.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

anchovie34,
This train isn't going to be like the light rail with one every 30 minutes. And it isn't going to be a commuter line able to pick up and drop off every few miles, there isn't the population for it. You underestimate the desire for convenience. Weekday ridership will be low because I can get to the mountains quickly on weekdays, that's when I go. I admit that some of my comments seem facetious or inane but it doesn't make them invalid and people do think of these things before deciding to go or not go on a train.

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Jaybyrd - did you know that ridership on the light rail was 40% higher than the estimated ridership level during the planning process? I guess public transportation does work in Colorado - whether or not you choose to use it...

Posted by generalsn1234567 on January 29, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

my3pugs has a valid point. Some of our commuter trains have a bar car, although not a wide variety of drinks. All beers are conventional caps, opener needed (no blenders) similar to Amtrak, but with bathrooms in each car. Many stations have bars closeby, a perfect location for that business. You can get your blender drinks there to go. I would think that trains would run pretty frequently, unless they do the cost saving method of running extra long trains at longer intervals with fewer personnel. Horrendous parking shows that many people prefer it to driving. The old adage "half the fun is getting there" still applies LOL

Posted by YIOTA on January 29, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jpg

" Why should the truckers have to suffer, they get paid to get their loads to the destination in a timely matter?"

" I still think a time limit on the lift tickets would help solve the problem. Six hour limit, if you arrive at 6:00am you will be not be allowed on the slopes after 12:00 and might just as well go home. If you want to ski until 5:00pm then there would be no reason for you to arrive until 11:00 am. This would stagger the traffic pattern on I-70 and could solve the congestion "

For your first commment. Aren't truckers already having to suffer when they get stuck in the stop and go traffic. The mental drain along with the fuel use and wear and tear on their vehicle is true suffering. Again, this is a short term try until a true solution can be agreed upon and put in place.

For you second comment. WTF???? Half day lift tiks already exist. If you want to do half days feel free. But for the rest of the paying community " JUST SAY NO "........

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

my3pugs - I'm not trying to lobby for train departures every 30 minutes, or stops at every major intersection. But if they had three or four departures each way, each day, then it would (or could work). It is certainly worth doing the EIS, public surveys, etc. No hate intended on my part, just trying to make counterpoints your points. I think people in Denver tend to be fairly progressive and would support the idea. I know I would and so would a number of skiers that I ride with.

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like my post and someone else's got deleted last night. My suggestion was to try to open the lifts at the resorts earlier in the morning on Saturday and Sunday to encourage people to show up earlier (since nobody wants to wait hours for the lifts to start).

The other guy's suggestion was to encourage businesses on the Front Range to let their employees work flex hours so that they can ski during the week and work on the weekend.

I like his idea since that would also help with rush-hour traffic in Denver.

Personally, I would be in favor of a high-speed rail link but am afraid it would never pass a popular vote so it isn't really worth talking about.

Posted by my3pugs on January 29, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am certainly not opposed to studying some options and if a convincing argument can be made on how it is a public benefit and not a benefit to only the ski industry or just skiers or other narrow groups, I'm all for it. But I am skeptical, not adamantly opposed, merely skeptical that this is worth public money. I would support some accommodation for private ventures since public land is undoubtedly involved. I hear that the skiing has been great lately, hope you get to enjoy it as much as you like, go early, I hear it works out better that way.

Posted by Theoldguy on January 29, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Monorail right above I-70. The skiers express and a good way to make it through the snow all the way to Vail or Glenwood then a transfer to the railroad for points farther west. Too simple for the politicians to figger out.

Posted by hakj on January 29, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Considering all the options I have one that is more cost effective.

There is plenty of space in the center median. Take it out and put in 1-2 center lanes much like the Denver HOV starting from Genesee on through to Silverthorne with exits and entrances at Genesee, Evergreen, Idaho Springs, and Silverthorne. Make it a toll at $5-$10 for the full length. With the optional annual purchase of the electronic pass such as they have on 470. Put operating times on the HOV lane(s)

Fridays: WB 4p-9p
Saturdays and Sundays: WB 6a-11a EB 2p-7p
Holidays vary depending on beginning of week or end of week holiday.

Have it open to all except truckers.

This eliminates the need for CDOT to purchase surrounding private property, does not create a restrictive and more expensive system, and creates revenue for maintenance by those who use the system.

Posted by DougH on January 29, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Ski season traffic problem affects about 20 week ends a year. The biggest problem is always from large trucks that tie up traffic. So, why don't we make a deal with the trucking industry to keep them off 1-70 for about 40 days a year. It should not be that hard. Maybe give the truckers an extra 10 cents off a gallon, or a free weekday ski pass. ? Gte rid of the trucks and you have the a manageable situation with out spending billions for a far fetched train or expensive new highways.

Posted by jgd on January 29, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YIOTA,

***For you second comment. WTF???? Half day lift tiks already exist. If you want to do half days feel free. But for the rest of the paying community " JUST SAY NO "........***

I can see your point, why should the ones who are actually causing this problem be required to suffer any inconvenience? Let the truckers suffer, make the taxpayers put out more money, but do not ask the skiers to make any sacrifices. Doesn't everyone know the skiers are the privileged ones and everything should evolve their needs. Skiers are causing the problems, skiers should be responsible to fix it.

Posted by dano on January 29, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

F the snow and Colorado. You are fools to live there. Too cold and too much crime. Good luck to you, leave now and avoid the rush. It was a good place years ago. Not Now!

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hakj - The problem is creating additional tunnels to handle new lanes of traffic. It would cost a lot of money to bore another tunnel parallel to the existing Eisenhower Tunnel and could not easily be routed between the existing tunnels because there are several utility/emergency tunnels that connect the two existing ones.

Posted by hakj on January 29, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle,

I understand both those points. But seeing as though I don't know specifically how those tunnels are used I can't make even an educated guess as to if what those tunnels are used for could be rerouted, reworked, and/or moved. Or even how reasonable it would be.

But it still could be cheaper than a monorail.

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dano - you're right, we're fools to live here. Tons of sunshine, beautiful mountains... Why would anyone want to live in Colorado? Too much crime? Yeah, compared to Hayes, KS maybe. Ever been to Chicago? LA? Cincinnati? Let's talk about crime on some other post, ok? Btw, we're all glad you're gone, but why are you still reading our paper?

Posted by Trythinking on January 29, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't worry the Al Gore and Bill Ritter have a plan. The average SUV produces 1.15 lbs of CO2 per mile. Sitting in traffic would easily double that to 2.3 lbs/mile. Round trip from Denver to Winter Park 140 miles or 322 pounds of CO2. Ritter's plan is to tax CO2 at $25 per ton. You will be taxed $4 per round trip just to save the planet from climate change. Last year there were 12 million visits to Colorado resorts. At 4 skiers per car that means 3 million round trips. That is 483,000 tons of CO2. Add to that the electric requirements of the lifts, resorts etc and pretty soon skiing can be shown to contribute to global warming. If you don't think the global warming debate affects you, think again.

Posted by YIOTA on January 29, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jgd, so when the DNC convention is in Denver it will create a lot of problems. Should we be expecting the polically correct dems to pay the good people of Colorado for inconveniencing us? Skiers are only a part of the problem. The road is old and not adequate to handle todays traffic volumes.

Along your thinking arent truckers and big business the problem. Maybe it should only be toll road for corporate vehicles????

Maybe the businesses should only be open for certain hours that way we can staggered shopping times. Also maybe the Gastapo can set up check points and shoot anyone who is breaking the law.

Do you live in Boulder?? Maybe I can come grab your land from you and you can go away to berkley or LA or NY..

Posted by RickyLee on January 29, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a snowmobilier, so as such I won't be paying any fees.
If I'm going skiing, I'll be sure to cover them(the skis) up in the back, and say I've got a business meeting at Copper Mountain.

Posted by frameloss on January 29, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What express buses? Has anyone tried to take a bus to the slopes? It is difficult if not impossible to find mass transport unless you are going from the airport. Why not implement a mass transit solution before taxing people for not using it?

Posted by jgd on January 29, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

***Should we be expecting the polically correct dems to pay the good people of Colorado for inconveniencing us?***

Absolutely! Every knows they are lousy tippers also.

***The road is old and not adequate to handle todays traffic volumes***

Those roads do quite well, except during the peak skiing hours. I drive that road quite often and have had very little problem
getting along, with two exceptions, extreme snow and ski season.

***Along your thinking arent truckers and big business the problem. Maybe it should only be toll road for corporate vehicles????***

Truckers pay more in highway taxes in a year than most skiers will pay in 10 years. Not sure how big business came into the discussion on traffic congestion, unless of course you are referring to the ski resorts. If you are indeed talking about ski resorts then yes they should be partially responsible for helping to correcting this problem.

If I had lived in Boulder you would not be reading my post, I would have committed suicide years ago.

Recently we had an issue regarding smoking and the problems it was supposedly causing other people. The solution was to have businesses find a solution with no assistance from the taxpayers. This seems like a very similar situation, skiers causing traffic congestion during peak hours, why shouldn't the ski resorts and skiers be responsible for fixing that problem?

Posted by theguy on January 29, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sigh.

Took the Ski Train to Winter Park saturday as a way to hang out with my girlfriend and take in the beautiful scenery (although denver's scenery...).

Nice, gentle, kinda SLOW with opposing trains filled with coalcars/ boxcars/ younameitcars at times.

We, as a society, not as a government mandate, need to decide what's best for our State and our State's economy, well-being, environment, all that. I think a train system (very LARGE expense), would be a terrific method to deal with our ski slopes, but it is NOT one size fits all for all the other problems (if we consider them problems - most aren't).

So how to fund it? Aye, there's the rub...

Also, if I had met this Romer fellow and he was propounding this preposterous "toll" or fee, I would probably have been arrested for harassing him up and down every slope and calling out to everyone near by that he wanted to tax them on their ride up to and down from what for many is their true love, the slopes. he would have gotten a true earful, I am sure. (And he knows it too, otherwise he wouldn't have waited until the end of the chair ride to tell his fellow skiers.)

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hakj - That's an idea that has been explored by CDOT. They feel that a third tunnel will need to be added at some point to the north of the existing ones. From this article (http://cbs4denver.com/local/eisenhowe...) here's a cost estimate of such a project:

The Eisenhower and Johnson Tunnels hold one of the most expensive stretches of interstate in the nation to maintain -- if not the most expensive stretch. They're staffed 24/7, and there are more than 100 cameras to monitor every inch of the tunnels at all times. The electricity bill alone is $800,000 a year. The cost to replace the white, tile panels in just one of the tunnels will cost $10 to $12 million. A third bore would increase the yearly expenses for CDOT at the divide, after it found a way to fund the initial construction costs.

"We are looking at, just for the tunnel itself, at least a half billion dollars," said Pinkerton, "and when you build the approaches…you're probably talking over $1 billion total."

It would also take a very long time to build. It took nearly 12 years to build the existing tunnels and a third one would have to be even longer than the existing 1.69 miles.

Posted by DougH on January 29, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Memo to: Theguy: when you say , we as a society must decide, you are talking about why we form representative government in the first place. Maybe you missed your high school civics class.
This Romer follow is acting as a responsible elected representative by making suggestions on resolving problems. That is what is was elected to do !!!
The high traffic toll is not a preposterous fee. It is a free market mechanism to charge higher prices when demand is high and have lower prices when demand is low. Get it ?

Posted by RightBeDone on January 29, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People are paying $72 a day for lift tickets, and they're complaining about paying their share of the money that it costs to maintain the roads they took to get there.

Where do you think all those roads come from? I don't want to pay for some yuppie brats who are going to DU so that they can go skiing every weekend in their gigantic road destroying SUV with snow chains on it. They want to go skiing, they should pay to repair the road they use to do it on.

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People, forget about the toll idea. It isn't legal so it's officially off the table. Yes, legislatures write the laws but this one is at the federal level and I strongly doubt they would change this law just to accommodate skiers in Colorado. Whether you're for the idea or against it it doesn't really matter now.

Posted by anchovie34 on January 29, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I don't want to pay for some yuppie brats who are going to DU..." whoa, settle down fella. You're not going to get much accomplished with that kind of attitude. But then again, you seem like the kind of person who is more interested in name-calling than solutions... And, no, I am not a "yuppie brat" from DU. I am full-time CO citizen, taxpayer, and skier. But I claim no more right to use the road than anyone else. After all, it is an Interstate, not a county or city road.

Posted by Heidi on January 29, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I side with anchovie at 1:13. I, personally, have never seen any vehicle other than the commercial trucks with chains on. If this view that skiers should pay for repair of roads that they drive on, then anyone that commutes to work 5 days a week on I70, I25, or C470 should pay for repairs for the roads they drive on. That is ridiculous. There are so many government programs that use our tax dollars and the normal taxpayer never benefits from all of them.

Posted by hakj on January 29, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle,

Interesting article but it never discussed the possibility of the third going straight down the middle. So no, it has not been explored. If anything in private CDOT conversations it MIGHT have been summarily dismissed.

There is 89' between the two existing tunnels. The problem with using this as the third tube handling 1-2 lanes of HOV type traffic is what? Two lanes of traffic will only take up at most 28' of this 89'.

Posted by Oh_Wise_One on January 29, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hahahahahahahahahahahahah....you removed my post. What, are you sarcasm intolerant or just minimum wage minions?

Posted by Localboy24 on January 29, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The solution has a couple of components:

In the short-term something must be done. I-70 is essentially the same road that I drove skiing 30 years ago. There have been almost no real additions, with only minor tinkering around the edges (improved on-ramps, etc.). For the next few years, heavy vehicle traffic should be limited to emergency vehicles only during ski-rush hours (6A-9A, westbound and 3P to 7P, eastbound) from Denver to Vail. If this was made law, truckers could plan around it, either using I-80, or delaying their entry into the mountains until after the curfew). Other cities, DC for example, have done this with major interstates. However this is not enough and is, at best, a short term solution.

Long-term, new road must be built. A train is not a great solution. Trains would cost nearly as much as an expanded road, but would be used only on weekends. It is very difficult to recover the $5-7 billion of investment, plus the cost of operating the train from a few thousand skiers per week (at best). The train would require substantially more heavy buses in the mountains to move skiers from the train depot to the mountains (additional investment that must be recovered). Trains work when they are going to be heavily used throughout the week--as is the case in major metro areas for daily commuters. More road is where its at. However, we really need to think about adding a reversible lane instead of more lanes to each side. Such a lane would be open to westbound traffic in the AM and eastbound traffic in the PM. Two reversible lanes would be great. They should start by building such a lane to the Empire turn-off. A decent amount of the traffic problem emerges because from Floyd Hill to Empire has only 2 westbound lanes, creating a 3-to-2 merge and slow traffic for miles.

Years of ridiculous inaction on roads had finally caught up to us and something must be done. I hope that someone in the state government does something, because it is less and less fun to go skiing. Colorado is a great place to live, work, and play, but traffic stinks.

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hakj - I think you can't build a 3rd tunnel between the two existing ones because it would compromise the structural integrity of the mountain and could put too much pressure on the existing tunnels. Also, as they said in the article, they had to overcome an engineering problem due to a fault in the mountain by adding additional concrete around the tunnels so there probably isn't as much room available between the tunnels as it seems.

I'm sure when they first built the tunnels they put them as close together as they possibly could because any additional space between them would make the one on the north longer and the interconnecting tunnels would need to be longer as well.

Posted by ezekiel777 on January 29, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Romer is a nut! What a waste of time talking about frivious solutions to a tangible problem. Maybe he should suggest that we harness all domestic cats and train them to pull trolly cars to the slopes... What Romer did is not productive but a waste of time and a serious distraction from finding real workable solutions. Stop listening to this fool. He obviously has no leadership skills.

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Stop listening to this fool." - ezekiel777

Why should anyone listen to you ezekiel777? Ever heard of 'brain storming'? If you have an idea, throw it out for all to see. He's asking the public for input and throwing out a few ideas and you're tossing his ideas back in his face and effectively flipping the bird at him. Wow, that's helpful. So I guess your solution for solving congestion on I-70 is something like this:

1) elect state congressman to address problems facing the state
2) congressman proposes ideas for fixing congestion on I-70
3) insult congressman and then ignore him
4) problem solved

Makes sense to me.

Posted by warrengfunk7 on January 29, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Add two BUS/HOV lanes (HOT/HOV lanes even) as well as a Mag-lev train.

Two HOV lanes will not end congestion on I-70. It will help ease it and provide a safer lanes for buses to use. Adding Mag-lev in the corridor will expand future capacity of the transit corridor well into the future. Furthermore, Mag-lev will make the state's top tourist destinations more accessible to travelers arriving by DIA without personal vehicles. These people often lack good mountain driving skills, or don't even have a legal drivers license if they come from foreign countries. Mag-lev makes access easy, and fast. Mag-lev makes Denver to Vail less than an hours trip. The tourism boost will be an economic boon to the state and make poise Denver to land host city to a Winter Olympics.

A third tunnel would have to be bored along the Eisenhower Tunnel. It would be a double-deck tunnel. The bottom deck would be for the two new HOV lanes of traffic and the top deck would be for the two Mag-lev rails.

IMPROVE THE HIGHWAY WITH HOV LANES AND ADD MAG-LEV, THAT"S THE SOLUTION AND IT"S WORTH THE INVESTMENT!

Posted by hakj on January 29, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle,

All I hear is "I think", "so there probably", "I'm sure when they first built the tunnels they put them as close together as they possibly could because any additional space between them would make the one on the north longer and the interconnecting tunnels would need to be longer as well."

Basically, you're putting a lot of trust into something that was never really discussed at least not in the open. You're putting a lot of trust into possibly wrongful assumptions about what CDOT has NOT said.

You very well could be right. I've thought of those things as well. But you know what? Nobody has ever said anything openly about them. I've got to wonder why. Is it because somebody's pockets won't get lined with as much green? Is it because the internal damage done might be so great it would cause public concern and possibly panic? Or is it simply because they know, for whatever reason, it is just an impossibility? (the maximum overburden would be too much for a third tunnel) Remember, they may have thought of this when the tunnels were built with the technology of the day, but what about today’s technology? Would that make a difference as to how much overburden could be sustained by adding a third tunnel in the middle?

I know I don’t design tunnels nor an I a demolitions expert, therefore I don’t know if it’s feasible or not. But to me given my knowledge it certainly sounds on the surface like a good idea and one that as far as I can tell has never been discussed, at least not openly.

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

warrengfunk7 - That's probably the most expensive possible solution, adding 2 lanes and the most expensive possible train, maglev. They probably couldn't fit all of that into a single tunnel deep through a mountain so two additional tunnels would probably be needed. Increasing the diameter of the tunnel forces you to make the tunnel stronger than it otherwise would have been. I could be wrong though, I'm not a mining engineer.

I was going to say a maglev train wouldn't be realistic but I just did some research and found that they are considering building a maglev in the mountains of Venezuela because they can supposedly handle grades of up to 10% (rather than 3% for a normal steel train). That's sufficient to match or even exceed the steepest grade leading to the Eisenhower Tunnel (7%). Of course, it would still be freakishly expensive to build. Even in the flatland of Shanghai, China it cost 1.33 billion dollars to build a 19 mile track. They are planning a 20 mile extension to it that will cost $110 million per mile. At $110 million per mile (and you know it would be much more than that building through mountains) it would cost about 11 billion dollars to build a track from Denver to Vail, plus the costs of tunnels. And labor usually costs a wee bit more here than in China and there would be significant costs for environmental studies that would have been non-existant in China.

Posted by KevinD on January 29, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

www.Skicarpool.com is up and running and helping.

Most folks meet at the Dinosaur lots. "Slugging" (ad-hoc carpooling)is easier and quicker, but needs the HOV lane as incentive. An HOV lane is nigh impossible to implement on a four-lane highway, but...

Once these become more popular, the buses we yearn for will appear, since the demand is obvious.

Big success for the buses will delay the need for a train or monorail. Check http://www.i70solutions.org/news.html

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hakj - I'm putting my trust into engineers. An engineer always tries to come up with the most practical solution. I'm sure they placed the tunnels 75 feet apart on purpose. I know in coal mining they leave walls standing to support the mass above and it makes sense that they would similarly use this technique when building a tunnel for a road. I also know that the thickness of these walls increase as you mine deeper into a mountain. The tunnels start at 75 feet apart at one side and seperate to 190 feet apart at the middle before they then bend closer together and exit at 80 feet apart. That seems to indicate that they purposefully made the tunnels farther apart in the middle due to the increased pressure from being under 1500 feet of rock and needed a greater area to dissipate the pressure. Check out CDOT's Eisenhower Tunnel page for more info: http://www.dot.state.co.us/Eisenhower...

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I recently blogged on this topic:

Pro-life people have their belief because either a) their interpretation of the Bible and/or b) their knowledge that a fertilized egg may grow within a woman until it is undoubtedly a human being.

To me, there are a few problems with either belief. For one, there are significant differences between a zygote (fertilized egg) and a baby that is born 9 months after conception. A zygote may, in the course of development, split into two separate individuals. This is how identical twins are formed. No person in the world can split in two and be two function people afterwards. In rare cases two separate zygotes my join early in conception, even of the opposite sex, creating chimeras and hermaphrodites. In extremely rare cases a zygote may split and then join back together at a later time. This is also something that is impossible for baby's or any other human to do.

If there is a soul, when does it attach to the zygote? If it is at conception, then does this soul split in two so that each identical twin has identical souls or does a single soul somehow control both twins? Does a chimera have two souls or does one somehow disassociate with one of the zygotes when this occurs?

Another problem I see with believing a zygote to be a human being is the frequent occurrence of their death. For example, there are many women who have great difficulty of becoming pregnant. By pregnant, I mean that the zygote has attached itself to the uterine wall. This doesn't mean that they are unable to form fertilized eggs however. In fact, many can form them at the same rate as any other woman (one or two per month) but they simply can't attach to the uterine wall. Would it be ethical to form a human being month after month with the full knowledge that they have no hope to survive? Should their passing be mourned as any other fetus would be mourned if there was a miscarriage?

It seems to me that people who view zygotes as human beings do so when it is convenient for them. When they want to fight abortion or contraceptives they view it as the intentional destruction of human beings. However, when they consider an infertile woman (who may, in fact, not be infertile just unable to become impregnated), they don't consider it to be the intentional destruction of human beings even though the result is identical to a normal woman who is taking a contraceptive pill. And when it comes to technical problems, such as chimeras and identical twins, they throw up their hands and act as if this isn't contrary to their view for some unspeakable/unknowable reason.

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While faith is often viewed as the antithesis to logic, I disagree. I believe one can have faith without obvious contradictions (in this case, their conception of what a human is). One thing I can guarantee: if your concept of a human is that of a being similar to the people that you see on a daily basis, a zygote is about as different as you can possibly imagine and your concept of human would have to be very general to be able to include both under the same term.

One other question: if it is a human being, how far are you willing to go to save it? One potential problem that can occur is the zygote may impregnate itself into the fallopian tube of the woman, threatening the mother's life. The zygote has no chance to develop into a functional person and must be aborted. However, if research was done it may be possible to move the zygote to the uterine wall where it could develop. Would such research be worth it?

Posted by joggle on January 29, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stupid web browser :(. Went to the wrong discussion. (RM editors: please delete two previous posts if you would.)

Posted by freethinker07 on January 29, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eliminate the parking lots at the ski resorts and make all the skiers buy their lift tickets before they get on the bus.

Posted by JPH on January 30, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another worthless idea by our elected Democrat officials. When will they ever get a clue and realize that the only real solution is to widen I-70. The legislature has been talking about and "studying" solutions for the 31 years that I have lived in Colorado. Remember the monorail - how ridiculous! Am I suppose to put my popup camper on this thing and then get off at Dillon so that I can then continue to Steamboat Springs? Good grief!

We are not only skiers but other users of our beautiful mountains year round. Has anyone tried to get through the tunnel or Idaho Springs over a Memorial Day weekend? Come on folks - get a clue. WIDEN INTERSTATE 70!!!!

Posted by generalsn1234567 on January 30, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Light rail is capable of grades steeper than freight railroads use. A new tunnel: only would only need to be big enough for the train itself, plus possibly some service areas; could be single track (trains would not be that frequent to need double tracking); electric trains have no exhaust to ventilate. Another thing not mentioned here so far is the possibility of having trains with car or truck carriers.

Posted by generalsn1234567 on January 30, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I remember driving route 40 or 6 before I-70 was opened. We all thought it was going to be the ultimate solution LOL

Posted by happytom on February 1, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.dot.state.co.us/travelinfo...

Here you can check out all of the studies that have been done. Let's remember that even though there might not be enough ridership/usage of any one plan right now, does not mean that in 50 years there still won't. There are many different ideas out there, shouldn't we at least listen to them all? That silly Edison guy.....why would I want to pay for light when I've got perfectly good candles here.

Personally, I very much like the MagLev otpion while widening the road. It will allow the longest usability before it has to be redone in 100 years. Plan for the future and draw out the expense for a long time as well. I prefer to do something right the first time.

On the flip side, a lot of traffic does mean that there are less SERIOUS wrecks. Let's face it, it is more difficult to get in a SERIOUS wreck when you're driving 15 miles an hour.